3 ms·
To whom that we are at war with has he helped? That's an easy question: nobody. We're not at war with anyone. The Congress thinks it's found an easy way aroun
by CWuestefeld 13y ago
To whom that we are at war with has he helped?
That's an easy question: nobody. We're not at war with anyone.
The Congress thinks it's found an easy way around the ugliness of a formal declaration of war (e.g., the AUMF). But here's a wrinkle. If we haven't declared war, then we're clearly not at war in a legal sense. And thus, it can't trigger the treason definition.
- rayiner 13y agoNothing about "being at war" requires a "formal declaration of war." Not in the Constitution, nor by statute, nor at common law. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unite....
- tptacek 13y agoNo major US war in the past 50 years, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan, or Iraq II has had a "formal declaration of war"; all were enabled by authorizations in the manner of the AUMF.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> If we haven't declared war, then we're clearly not at war in a legal sense. The Supreme Court has long recognized that acts of Congress that have the effect of declaring war don't have to use any particular language. It has also recognized that a declaration of war by Congress, whatever its form, is sufficient but not necessary to initiate a state of war, as war can be initiated by the other party attacking, declaring war, or by other means.