(no subject)

[kathygnome]

Well, a judge in Virginia has dismissed a lawsuit by a German citizen who was tortured by the US. What's extraordinary is that if you read his decision, it makes it clear that the constitution is null and void.

"In times of war, our country, chiefly through the executive branch, must often take exceptional steps to thwart the enemy."

Comments

[veiledrachel2.livejournal.com]

You or I may read the Constitution that way but the courts do not. As recently as 2000, in CAMPBELL V. CLINTON (DC Cir. 2000) the federal circuit court for D.C. held that President Clinton had the power to take military action in the former Yugoslavia so long as he in good faith felt it was "necessary for the national security" of the United States as the Constitution allows the President to take defensive military action without a Congressional declaration of war. The Supreme Court denied cert. The Campbell case was consistent with opinions dating back to the Vietnam War. The dissenters in Campbell said that the Court should require evidence of the necessity be presented, but the majority, following the "political questions" doctrine said that a court appraisal of the necessity would put the court in the position of determining national security and policy, a role for the Executive, not the Judicial Branch. In practice so long as there is not evidence that the President intentionally sent troops without any rational basis for a national security concern, the courts allow the President almost unlimited ability to wage military campaigns without a declaration of war. You or I might think this is blatantly unconstitutional but we are not charged with interpreting the Constitution...the courts are.

[kathygnome.livejournal.com]

Yes.

What does the lack of a formal declaration of war have to do with the claimed greater powers of our beloved leader though?