Not even going to admit it this time, eh?

Please come back when you've taken some classes in law, history, or best of all, legal history. Or at least read a book about one or more of those subjects.

That's arrogance. Ironic, since you said it while claiming not to be arrogant. DOUBLY so since for all your "understanding of the subject matter" you then have to admit you were wrong.

The fact is that we declared war, just as we did in Korea and Vietnam, without making a Declaration of War. We did this to meet the requirement of the constitution to have declared war, without having to really deal with the messy aspects of a Declaration of War. Congress authorizing force meets the vague constitutional threshold of going to war, hence we are at war. Its a very fine point and based solely on technicalities, but unfortunately that's the world we live in.

...Billy's unfounded air of superiority and misplaced arrogance kinda rubbed me the wrong way. For some odd reason.

First, I displayed zero arrogance, merely an understanding of the subject matter that is sorely lacking from a majority of the posts in this thread. Second, you came to this conclusion because you didn't read what I said. In your defense, I referenced a declaration of war, and said that it was the only way to operate constitutionally. I should have been clearer - my point was that declarations of war have to be unequivocal, not that any specific language needs to be used. I clarified this point prior to your post, which clearly illustrates both your lack of foundation on constitutional law and inability to comprehend basic English.

The point is, if we can plausibly debate whether a bill has exercised the war powers clause, then it hasn't. This is inarguably the situation as it currently exists regarding Iraq. Please further demonstrate how little you know by arguing against this absolutely uncontroversial position.

Billy makes my argument for me at the same time he argues against it. The clause has no set definition of how, precisely, congress is to exercise their power to "declare war." Because we used to do it in a stricter sense in no way invalidates our current approach, in regards to constitutionality. Whether the approach we have used the last few decades is intelligent is highly debatable, however for other reasons.

"Our current approach" in the context of this conversation wrongfully and disingenuously implies that war has been declared. It has not.

If what you meant was instead that it is not unconstitional for the President to use force when the country is not at war, then I cannot disagree. However, the justification for stripping Habeas has frequently been stated as "we're at war," and I am quite tired of people who have no idea what they're talking about spouting this lie because it supports their cowardice.

HR114 - A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

...SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

The FAS (No friend of the Bush Administration states the following "...P.L. 107-243 clearly confers broad authority on the President to use force. The authority granted is not limited to the implementation of previously adopted Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq but includes "all relevant ... resolutions." Thus, it appears to incorporate resolutions concerning Iraq that may by adopted by the Security Council in the future as well as those already adopted. The authority also appears to extend beyond compelling Iraq's disarmament to implementing the full range of concerns expressed in those resolutions. The President's exercise of the authority granted is not dependent upon a finding that Iraq was complicit in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Moreover, the authority conferred can be used for the purpose of defending "the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. On March 19, 2003, President Bush used the authority granted in P.L. 107-243 by launching a military attack against Iraq."

I'd note for Michael that Gonzales's testimony is the exact word wrangling our current form of "declaring war" was designed to allow. We have in effect met the constitutional requirement, thanks to its vagueness, while allowing us to insist to others that we haven't REALLY declared war as far as "affecting treaties, diplomatic relations." I would rather see us use the stricter form and do it right, but it's not unconstitutional.

What undeclared war? Read the Iraq resolution.

Former Attorney General ALberto Gonzales disagrees with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Current_status_of_the_U.S._debate

The February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

I don't see how a bill providing Habeas protection to non-citizens in US custody is a matter of war or peace, it's a matter of due process isn't it?

It's a fundamental question in how we handle the war on terrorism.

That's up to the courts to decide, isn't it? If the Republicans really thought it was that blatantly unconstitutional, they could have allowed a vote, voted against it, and then brought it to court.

Legislators swear and oath to the Constitution every bit as much as judges. If they feel strongly that something's unconstitutional, they have a duty to do everything in their power to defeat it.

I'd note, too, that this is precisely the type of thing for which the filibuster was intended: Major issues of public policy. It doesn't get much bigger than war and peace.

I don't see how a bill providing Habeas protection to non-citizens in US custody is a matter of war or peace, it's a matter of due process isn't it?

The bill in question is rather obviously unconstitutional.

That's up to the courts to decide, isn't it? If the Republicans really thought it was that blatantly unconstitutional, they could have allowed a vote, voted against it, and then brought it to court.

...most of them have at least a basic understanding of the law...

Or the Constitution.

...which is more than I can say for some.

Such as, oh, say, Billy.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:

[The Congress shall have power] To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

I keep re-reading that clause to find the form prescribed for declaring war, but somehow I don't find it.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but Billy's unfounded air of superiority and misplaced arrogance kinda rubbed me the wrong way. For some odd reason.

It's quite illustrative of the desperation of the "give up any rights because we're pissing our pants at the thought of terrorism" camp that this is where you hinge your justifications. Not even the GOP seriously argue this in anything other than a rhetorical context.

But, then, most of them have at least a basic understanding of the law, which is more than I can say for some.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 provides that...congress...has...the power:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

This does not specify or require any particular form of that declaration.

Billy's position that there is one, and only one form of declaration of war is not supported.

...show me specifically where in the constitution it tells you the verbiage you must use to declare war.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

Here's what a declaration of war looks like. You'll notice the language "state of war between the United States and . . . is hereby formally declared." That's not one of the possible ways of declaring war, it's the ONLY way.

Are we done with that now?

To Tano, you may want to switch to decaf or comment on what I actually write and not put words in my... um... fingers. We have the clear authority to hold any prisoners engaging us during war for as long as the conflict continues. It is on the ENEMY to conduct themselves according to the rules of war, which civilized societies agreed on to protect civilians. If they do not, we are pretty much obligated to execute them, because they have by their own actions willingly put civilians at risk by not making themselves discernible from those civilians. America does not execute spies, and I think we've seen how detrimental that is in terms of more civilian casualties. At the same time, we have a responsibility to give our soldiers as much protection as possible, and that includes shielding them from the unfortunate deaths and detentions that occur as a result of the enemy's actions. We go to great lengths to try and protect the innocent, but ultimately any innocent lives ended or interrupted by detention is the fault of our enemy, not us. Erring on the side of caution to the extent you advocate sets more terrorists free and kills more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.