WO'N:
Interesting editorial, but the average person reading it isn't going to note several things. First and foremost, the website whence it came is one of the mainstay pushers of the "philosophy" of our fringe group called the Libertarian Party. So what you have put forth IS a partisan issue. I'm not familiar with the Madison quote, but I'm willing to put my dollars against your crullers that the context does not support the point that Hornberger's trying to get you to believe.
As to whether a war is "declared" or not, the question is absolutely moot. The last declaration of war by the US was in 1941; we've been in plenty of other conflicts since then, the main ones being Korea (a "police action" by the UN), Vietnam, and most recently Desert Storm, though there have been perhaps a couple of dozen others, depending upon how you classify them. Grenada, Somalia, etc etc ad nauseam.
What HAS happened is that the Congress has given the President the backing of the Congress in his decision to wage war. Semantically, this is nothing short of a declaration of war but without the words that say, "Hey, buddy, we're gonna whip your butt." Following is the text of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave LBJ (and Nixon) all the authority needed to get up to our asses in SE Asia.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.
Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.
Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.
You need to bear in mind that a President does have the authority to wage war, but he doesn't have the authority to pay for it. That's where Congress steps in. If they don't fund a war or police action or whatever euphemism you want to place on it, the hostilities are just not going to occur. The power of the purse is awesome in a republic like ours.
Also, Congress can impeach a President for waging war without approval. It can, though our recent history showes we're more interested in the wages of sin than the waging of war.
As to whether the war is "illegal" or not, pretty much every conflict we've been involved in since WW II has been subjected to scrutiny by the Supreme Court. Note how many times the Notorious Nine have said the President is engaging in an illegal war. And if the Supremes say it's legal, then by definition it is.
As with most of the stuff coming out of the Libertarian Party, this editorial is unconvincing at best, and seditious garbage at worst.
One last point: If two countries are engaged in hostilities, does it make one darned iota of difference if they have not "declared war" on one another. Declaration of war is SO 18th century! I could never figure out how two nations who were at the point of trying to beat each other senseless could be so civil as to send someone to deliver a formal declaration of war.
TEd
