2011 Discussion Forum
If you would like to add comments to our Discussion Forum, please email us at cactus@eku.edu. Please add your name and where you are from to the e-mail.
2011 Topic
Should our President be able to start a war?
- What should the limits be on what a President can do?
- Are declared wars obsolete?
- Is the Constitution meaningless?
- What is the role of Congress?
- Did the War on Terror change everything forever?
On April 11, at 3:59 PM, David said:
I think the wording of going to war or declaring war is not important. I believe congress should approve the use of American treasure (life and dollars) when it comes to all issues related to a foreign governments. Dropping bombs on a country to change government requires debate to better understand risk, commitment, goals, unintended consequences, etc. As far as MitchÕs vote, he is an experienced Politian and I am sure he was voting in a way that will either help or the party in future debates.
On April 11, at 4:03 PM, David said:
I think that original intent should always be considered. Though It is true that existing laws may not be useful for a particular conflict on the war on terrorism, a decision about that should be made between the executive branch and Congress. Original intent was created with traditional wars in mind. That being said, any deviation from that model should have deliberation.
On April 14, at 11:20 AM, Ryan said:
Should the President have the power to start a War? I would like to think that we all would agree that the power for making war is to dangerous to rest in the hands of one individual. (President) Let us look at the essential problem, which is a collective action problem within Congress, and until this problem is fixed, than the President will continue to exercise this power of making war. For example, the President sends troops into Libya without Congress approval. By the time Congress convenes, votes, and makes a decision, the President has already bombed,invaded, achieved their goal, and have landed back in the States. Congress is simply to inefficient, and this problem needs to be fixed.
On April 14, at 6:20 PM, Ed said:
Might be helpful, if possible, to define what \"a war\" is. Given the general beligerance of humans I doubt that declared wars are finished. But the United States, since it\'s inception, has been involved in many undeclared conflicts. In every case, the Constitution, as written, has served (although the Presidential action taken may have outraged many). A big question now is, will that work in a nuclear inviornment where speed of reaction is critical? I\'m inclined to leave the Constitution alone even in this case. I dislike tinkering with the machinery of democracy without clear cause, and second guessing the future is always chancy. Thanks to the genius of Squire Jefferson and friends, there are enough loopholes written into the Constitution to allow the President, in the interest of national security, to take whatever actions he feels are necessary and get Congress to appprove it later. At least that\'s the way it\'s worked historically.
On April 15 at 2:43 PM, Ed said:
I thought Tea partiers wanted to "go up there and straighten Congress out, i.e. rewrite the Constitution to reflect only what they believe." At least that has been the theme down here in Secession Land. The thing about Congress is like what Churchill supposedly said about democracy: it's the worst possible form of government until you try to think of a better one. Given my lack of knowledge of Political Science, Geo-politics and Constitutional law I feel grossly underqualified to try to do that. But my grade-school knowledge leads me to think that (fortunately) Congress is just one of the three legs on which our government stands (maybe four if one considers the Constitution as a separate fourth). So it's doubtful (hopefully) that those legs will fail to support one another. Admittedly, the stool is sometimes wobbly, but still durable. That's the thing about American democracy; it's all a matter of trust.
On April 17 at 9:45 PM, Wesley said:
In the United States, as well as in Europe, there should be strict limits placed on the leaders when it comes to deciding if the nation should go to war. This is simply too much power, and too much responsibility to be placed on one individual. The practice of not having a strong check on presidential war powers allows for personal agenda to come thru; even when it is not in the best interest for the citizens of the country. An excellent example the horrors that can come from the abuse of military power is Adolph Hitler, and the other horrible dictators in history. The United States and all countries within the European Union all need to have a universal practice of limiting the war powers and privileges of their leaders. It is also important to look to other countries with limited presidential war powers as examples of how countries with wider ranged war powers should handle their policies on the issue. An example of a European country that has strict war powers is, Italy. ItalyÕs policy on war powers is a policy that could be universally accepted, or variations of it within the United States and the European Union. Before Italy can go to war the government must first have approval from the Parliamentary Chamber, Senate, and the Chamber of Deputies. With all countries there should be many hoops that must first be jumped thru before they are allowed to declare war. The entire population of voting age individuals should also vote on if they feel that it is best and responsible to engage in military action, since they are the ones who will ultimately pay for the war in the long run. The practice of a popular vote should always be taken into account, unless in extreme emergencies. During times of emergencies when the country and its citizens are in immediate danger of attack, then and only then should the leaders be able to deploy troops without several votes and checks on their decision for deploying troops.
