[lbo-talk] USA scoffs laws

[andie nachgeborenen]

Charles, The C has no requirements for _conducting_
war; it imposes a requirement for _declaring_ war. You
can argue that the framers assumed that we wouldn't be
running around conducting undeclared wars, but
nonetheless, they left the window open. As to your
interpretation of "make" to mean "end," do you have
any authority for that? (As any judge would say . . .
.) jks

--- Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
> 
> andie: Some the examples below are flawed:
> 
> > --"The Congress shall have power...To Declare
> > War...": Art I, Sec 8, Cl. 10
> > (Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War I&II,
> > etc.)
> >
> 
> Well, Congress has that power. It's just that the
> Executive has decided to go to war without declaring
> it, a barbarism that the framers failed to foresee,a
> nd Congress, which could do something about it
> (cutting off the $, e.g.) hasn't.
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: The observation that the United States of
> America is, today, scofflawful
> with respect to its own Constitution's requirements
> for conducting war is
> essentially flawless.
> ^^^^^--
> "The President...shall have power, by and with the
> > consent
> > of the Senate, to make treaties...: Art II, Sec 2,
> > Cl. 2
> > (But Bush can withdraw from treaties without
> > reference
> > to the Senate or the faintest rebuke from Court)
> 
> Make is one thing, withdraw is another. The ABM
> treaty
> contained provision sfor unilateral withdrawal.
> 
> ^^^^^
> CB:  The best interpretation is that "make" includes
> "unmake". Bush
> scofflaws  on this..
> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com