The Treason Lobby, mostly including the far left wing of the Democratic Party, has been trying for decades to hamstring the United States’ ability to wage war. They’ve raised this argument time and time again, to no avail because it is settled law.

georgej on August 26, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Read the following article and explain who the “treason lobby” is. (hint: look right not left)
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86506/william-g-howell-jon-c-pevehouse/when-congress-stops-wars.html

It is a long read but the most interesting passage is:

Regardless of which party holds a majority of the seats in Congress, it is almost always the opposition party that creates the most trouble for a president intent on waging war. When, in the early 1990s, a UN humanitarian operation in Somalia devolved into urban warfare, filling nightly newscasts with scenes from Mogadishu, Congress swung into action. Despite previous declarations of public support for the president’s actions, congressional Republicans and some Democrats passed a Department of Defense appropriations act in November 1993 that simultaneously authorized the use of force to protect UN units and required that U.S. forces be withdrawn by March 31, 1994.

A few years later, a Republican-controlled Congress took similar steps to restrict the use of funds for a humanitarian crisis occurring in Kosovo. One month after the March 1999 NATO air strikes against Serbia, the House passed a bill forbidding the use of Defense Department funds to introduce U.S. ground troops into the conflict without congressional authorization. When President Clinton requested funding for operations in the Balkans, Republicans in Congress (and some hawkish Democrats) seized on the opportunity to attach additional monies for unrelated defense programs, military personnel policies, aid to farmers, and hurricane relief and passed a supplemental appropriations bill that was considerably larger than the amount requested by the president. The mixed messages sent by the Republicans caught the attention of Clinton’s Democratic allies. As House member Martin Frost (D-Tex.) noted, “I am at a loss to explain how the Republican Party can, on one hand, be so irresponsible as to abandon our troops in the midst of a military action to demonstrate its visceral hostility toward the commander in chief, and then, on the other, turn around and double his request for money for what they call ‘Clinton’s war.’” The 1999 debate is remarkably similar to the current wrangling over spending on Iraq.

Typical indeed.  Martin Lewis made some fairly idiotic comments in a post entitled “General Pace, You Can Save the US – by Arresting Bush for “Conduct Unbecoming”.

General Pace – you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to pr…

i was in the navy for one hitch. i worked for the navy as a civilian for another 36 years. based on that amount of time i cannot feature a single person in the uniform of the united states of america attacking or trying to take into custody a sitting president.

one thing that has not come up in the last three days is that they could not bear arms in the continental united states in this matter because of the “posse commitatus” act. something that i believe the democrats had a leading role in passing.

then there is this particular one (president). he actually flew single seat jet military aircraft and walked away from every single landing. the military understands the problems that he faced doing that and respect him for it.

its one of those laws of the universe. in this particular endeavoy you mess up and you die, no problem.

none of his detractors seem to have even a single engine private ticket.

C

On Saturday, Martin Lewis at The Huff-N-Puffington Post suggested that Peter Pace should relieve President Bush of command. Captain Ed, Allahpundit, and Dale Franks responded based on the legalities, and they were quite correct. The President is not a …

I want a wide swath for my own personal speech, though I think that I should be gradually restricted in this freedom as my speech becomes louder (in terms of effect/range).

Martin made an idiotic statement, which did more to show his lack of familiarity with the US Constitution than anything else.

Oh, God, I wonder what advice Martin Lewis would have for the Federal Reserve Board if there was a–completely unforeseeable!–run on the banks after the President was “arrested.” Maybe he’d read the Uniform Code of What to Do in a Blind Financial Panic and then explain to the Fed that “you have the authority” to return the U.S. to the gold standard. That would fix it.

Can I call them traitors yet?
Romeo13 on August 26, 2007 at 10:22 AM

Well, by definition, no.
Seditious idiot? Yep!

Great post georgej……

They will look at France and realize that the French are already into their 5th republic. The libs will think that we are being arrogant by having kept the same republic that we started with and will then call for 3 quick up and down US Republics, so that the French don’t feel so bad about their own pitiful political system(s).

Libs love islam. They have to spend half of their time, these days, defending islamic control of nations. They are constantly being forced to explain why anyone could expect a muslim society to build a decent society, which always brings up the same answer – Turkey. Every time you talk to a lib about muslims ruling themselves, they always point to Turkey, since that is the closest that the islamic world gets to self-rule with individual liberty.

After a while, they get confused and forget that they are Americans. So, one day, while pouring over the Turkish Constitution they notice that the military is charged with the task of taking over the government whenever they think it necessary and, BINGO!, they see the answer to all their desires right there in the {Turkish} Constitution (libs always have problems understanding which documents apply to which countries). So, they are only calling for what they think is constitutional.

Give them a break. They started doing this, before, with those insanely moronic “no-confidence” votes in Congress that have no meaning in our system. Of course, that’s when libs were obssessed with Europe and thought that they lived in a European system. So, now the libs are stuck on the Turkish system. Give them a few minutes and they’ll find another country to try and emulate.

If you don’t think that this demand for impeachment is a coordinated attack upon the President, you need to look again. This is no “spontaneous” or “grass roots” movement but an activity directed by moveon.org and funded by George Soros.

The more I hear about impeachment and coups, the more I sense that the left has started counting the chickens and realized that they have a basket full of eggs, and some of them are broken.

This is a common misconception. But a congressional authorization to use military force is the same as a declaration of War. See Bas v. Tingy and Talbot v. Seemen.

Other References:

“The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seemen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war;”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734

“It has long been settled that congressional approval of presidential military action need not take the form of a declaration, see, e.g., Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1 (1801); Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 37 (1800).”
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2002/b10022002_bt497-02.html

“The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry. It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has it been denied, that congress may authorize general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation; or partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, must be noticed. ” Talbot v. Seeman (1801) http://www.justia.us/us/5/1/case.html

“Chief Justice John Marshall wrote plainly, “The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry.” Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1, 28 (1801). This is true whether Congress authorizes “general hostilities” by declaring war, or “partial hostilities” by authorizing the use of force in an military action short of war, as it has done here.” [The United States, Appellant v. Raman Aziz al-Abi, Defendant-Appellee at http://sourcebook.fsc.edu/polisci/mootcase2003.html

In addition, there are situations where a formal authorization for military force is not even needed. For example, 50 USC 1541, The War Powers Resolution give the President 48 hours to wage war before consulting Congress and can wage war for 60 days without Congressional approval.

Further, the President does not need a declaration of war to respond to either declarations or acts of war committed against the United States. To wit:

"Even assuming a court could determine what "war" is, it is important to remember that the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, which is not necessarily the same as the power to determine whether U.S. forces will fight in a war. This distinction was drawn in the Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 17 L.Ed. 459 (1862). There, petitioners challenged the authority of the President to impose a blockade on the secessionist States, an act of war, where Congress had not declared war against the Confederacy. The Court, while recognizing that the President "has no power to initiate or declare a war," observed that "war may exist without a declaration on either side." Id. at 668. In instances where war is declared against the United States by the actions of another country, the President "does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority." Id. Importantly, the Court made clear that it would not dispute the President on measures necessary to repel foreign aggression. The President alone must determine what degree of force the crisis demands. The proclamation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the Court that a state of war existed which demanded and authorized a recourse to such a measure, under the circumstances peculiar to the case. "

[CAMPBELL v. CLINTON, 203 F.3rd 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000]

In other words, if the President determines that a state of war exists, a formal declaration of war by Congress is not necessary for the country to go to war.

The Treason Lobby, mostly including the far left wing of the Democratic Party, has been trying for decades to hamstring the United States’ ability to wage war. They’ve raised this argument time and time again, to no avail because it is settled law.

it seems to me that there was a declaration of war. it was in that mess where congress wanted to vote on it two separate times so that they could squeeze the political milage out of it.

C

Can I call them traitors yet?

Yup.

If these are the kinds of people pulling the strings on the left, then a GOP victory next November is a slam dunk.

You just can’t make this stuff up. You just can’t….

You ought to post this in response to Martin Lewis over at Huff…

The most wacked out case of BDS I think I’ve ever seen!From HuffPo:General Pace – you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.You can relieve the President of his…..

The United States is at war…

georgej on August 26, 2007 at 7:39 AM

While I agree we are engaged in war, the fact is Congress did not and has not formally declared war. Congress only authorized the use of military force, which is not the same as a declaration of war.

I do agree with your other statements. The guy ought to be brought up on charges. However, we all know this isn’t going to happen…

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits….