The President does not take an oath to defend the United States.

[kentuck]

He takes an oath to defend the "Constitution" of the United States. I know this has been said several times over the years here on DU but I think it needs to be said again. With our troops in Afghanistan, they say it is to defend our "homeland". Some would argue that the President does not have that stated authority as Commander in Chief of the military of the United States while at war. Maybe it is time to bring our troops home?

[deaniac21]

1. Don't hold your breath.

[avaistheone1]

2. It is long past time to bring our troops home.

These wars in the Middle East bankrupt our country morally and fiscally.

Our troops need to be brought home now. I am thoroughly disgusted that these wars continue.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

3. K&R.

[liberal N proud]

4. Only Congress has the power to wage war

So the laws say

[Romulox]

5. Not exactly. The President has the POWER to unilaterally wage war

but he does not have the RIGHT.

[liberal N proud]

6. True, power is not necessarily the right by law.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. In our system, power is derived from the people through...

the Constitution.

The president does not either in the Constitution or the War Powers act have the power to unilaterally wage war.

Any power not derived from the people and the Constitution are ussurped by a tyrant.

When Bush inititated the policy of Unilateral war he went to the Congress and gained their authorization. He did not, as a king would, simply declare war himself.

[Romulox]

12. A bankrobber has the POWER to withdraw my savings, but not the RIGHT

Two different concepts.

"The president does not either in the Constitution or the War Powers act have the power to unilaterally wage war."

That's because the power to do so comes from coporate money and the barrel of a gun, not the Constitution. And at least a half a dozen Presidents now have used their power to wage war sans any declaration of war from the Congress.

"When Bush inititated the policy of Unilateral war he went to the Congress and gained their authorization. "

Is that right? Most of the Democrats who voted for the IWR claimed to be flabbergasted that Bush took their vote as an authorization for war (still waiting for a formal declaration on that, btw!)

[Ozymanithrax]

14. But we are not discussing criminal behavior.

We are discussing the powers of the Executive.

[Romulox]

15. What "criminal behavior"? There have been no prosecutions. Nor will there be.

"We are discussing the powers of the Executive."

Yes. You need to distinguish "powers" from "rights". Another example: the President has the power to advocate for the positions of parties who promise to donate the most to his re-election campaign. He does not have this right under the Constitution.

But the facts on the ground are self evident. The President commands the military, and the only real check on his excercise of this power are the following:

a) political pressure
b) the power of the purse
c) the loyalty of the military

This is easily demonstrated by the secret military operations conducted by the executive branch throughout the world, at least ostensibly (wink wink!) without the knowledge or authorization of the Congress.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Congress does not wage war. The military does that.

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

These powers are defined more sharply in the War Powers Act. But, once they delcare war or authorize force, it is in the President's authority to wage that war.

[liberal N proud]

9. Also true, they "declare war"

[Ozymanithrax]

7. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists

(Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001) is the basis for the conflict in Afghanistan. He continues to act in accordance with that law.

This is not about defending the Constitution. War is a form of foreign diplomacy and the President has that power once authorized by Congress either by a declaration of war, an authorization of the use of force, or by having one of our treaties of self defense activated.

Theoretically, Congress could revoke the act, but they won't do that. It would never pass. They could defund the Afghan war, as they defunded Vietnam. But they won't to that because many believe it led to the Republican's ability to win every time on national defense.

[kentuck]

10. Did it not have an expiration that needed re-authorization?

I thought so? Maybe not?

[Romulox]

13. And who decides if the President has "an authorization of the use of force",

or if one of our treaties has been "activated"?

The President decides.