How to declare war.

The power to declare war belongs to US Congress under the US Constitution. This is clearly stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:

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;

I added clause 12 because, as I keep pointing out, the issue of standing armies was important to the Constitutional framework. The founders made it clear that standing armies were the tools, and a sign, of tyranny. 

I'm going to cite once again this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

This isn't to point out the Militia/Standing Army conflict, which was something the constitution bears out, but to point out that the use of military force requires the consent of congress: not unilateral action by a maniac (tyrant).

The law of the Declare War Clause is unsettled in part because there have been very few judicial decisions interpreting it. In the Prize Cases in 1863, the Supreme Court upheld as a defensive measure President Lincoln’s blockade of the southern states following their attack on Fort Sumter, but was ambiguous as to whether the authority for the blockade came from Article II, from specific statutes Congress had passed in 1795 and 1807, or some combination of both. And in dicta, the Court noted that the President could not begin hostilities without Congress’s approval. Earlier cases, such as Bas v. Tingy (1800), referred generally to Congress’s broad powers over warmaking without giving specific guidance on the President’s power. But in modern times, courts have generally avoided deciding war-initiation cases on the merits, based on rules that limit what types of disputes courts can resolve, such as standing or the political question doctrine. As a result, the precise contours and implications of the Declare War Clause remain unresolved today—leaving resolution of disputes over particular uses of force by the President to the political process. 

The president is allowed to use military force for imminent threats, but I would say that those threats need to be actual and directly upon the territory of the United States. Anything other than that would require Congressional approval.

I also disagree with the concept that any use of troops beyond the territory of the United States is not in violation of this since a "peacekeeping" force can find itself embroiled in a conflict. The founders were clear that one of the reasons they preferred militias to standing armies was that they were local defence forces. That is, they would not be used on "foreign adventures": especially those like the one pursued by Trump.

Trump gives fabulous examples of why this clause needs to be strictly interpreted with consideration  to  international law with his latest adventure being both unconstitutional and in violation of international war.

The United States and Israel were in negotiations with Iran, with Iran basically conceding to the demands when both Israel and the United States attacked Iran: which is a violation of international law. Toss in that it discredits both Israel and the United States, which is why they started this last conflict, but won't be the ones to end it. 

It is long past time that the US military serves as a defence force, not one that keeps the country in forever wars. 

War Plan for Operation Epic Failure

 If there ever was an argument for making criteria for the use of military force and ensuring that only congress can declare war:

There is no plan for how this mess will be carried out.

Police Brutality???

 

OK, I am doing an experiment on cultural attitudes toward policing. I'm hoping that a US audience will see this and give their opinion.

This was posted by the French @gendarmerie_nationale_officiel with the caption:
The trend gone wrong #humour #gendarmerie #gendarme

 

I've mentioned that I have seen British police beat the crap out of people who resisted arrest.

I am also aware of the cultural differences in policing.

I am curious as to how this would be received by a US audience.

Just curious about the common law position on "gun rights"

 So, I did another AI search. And even though I am against AI, I thought I would see what sort of response I received to the following query: "What is the British common law position on gun rights". Here are the results.

AI Overview

In British common law, there is no enshrined right to bear arms; rather, gun ownership is considered a strictly regulated privilege. The state controls access to firearms to protect public safety, requiring individuals to obtain licenses and demonstrate "good reason" for possession, such as sport, hunting, or occupational use. 

Key details:
No Right to Bear Arms: Unlike the U.S. Second Amendment, the UK has no legal right to bear arms.
Licensing and Control: The Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent acts strictly regulate, and often prohibit, the possession of firearms.
Requirements: A valid license is required from the local police, which involves a vetting process to ensure the applicant is fit and has a "good reason" for ownership.
Restrictions: Handguns have been generally illegal since 1997.
Self-Defense: Firearms are not considered a legal means of self-defense. 
The law focuses on public safety, making gun ownership highly conditional. 

what is the british common law position on gun rights

In British common law, gun ownership is currently viewed as a privilege, not a right. While a historic right to bear arms was once recognized, it has been effectively superseded by a series of parliamentary statutes, particularly since 1920. 

Historical Common Law Context
Historically, the common law position was rooted in both an obligation and a right for citizens to be armed: 
Mandatory Armament: Dating back to the 12th century (e.g., the Assize of Arms 1181), free Englishmen were required by law to maintain weapons suitable to their rank for the defense of the realm and local order.
English Bill of Rights (1689): This document codified the right of subjects who were Protestants to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". This was largely a response to attempts by King James II to disarm his opponents.
Blackstone’s Commentaries: In the 18th century, jurist William Blackstone described the right to have arms as a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" and a "public allowance" to prevent the suppression of other liberties. 

Shift from Right to Privilege
The transition from a common law right to the modern regulated system occurred through several key legislative milestones: 
Firearms Act 1920: This marked the definitive end of the "right" to bear arms by introducing a mandatory licensing system where applicants had to prove a "good reason" to own a firearm.
Removal of Self-Defense: While self-defense was initially considered a valid reason for ownership, the Home Office ceased recognizing it as such in 1937 (Great Britain only).
Modern Prohibitions: Following mass shootings in Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996), Parliament banned most semi-automatic rifles and nearly all handguns. 

Current Legal Status
Today, the "common law" has been almost entirely displaced by the Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent amendments: 
Licensing: All firearms must be licensed by the local police, who must be satisfied the applicant is not a danger to public safety and has a "good reason" (e.g., sport, hunting, or work).
Northern Ireland Exception: Northern Ireland remains the only part of the UK where "personal protection" may still be accepted as a legitimate reason for a firearm certificate under specific, verifiable risks. 
Would you like to explore the specific licensing requirements or the list of prohibited weapons under current UK law?

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more

My addition is this quote from Blackstone on the subject:

5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

And this is a link to a Parliamentary paper: 

FIREARM CONTROLS IN BRITAIN PART I THE HISTORY OF FIREARMS CONTROLS IN GREAT BRITAIN

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm
 

What The F*** Is Wrong With USS Gerald R. Ford?

 OK, this is something which is definitely verifiable.

 Trump's fiasco is harming the United States: and that's not Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

We know he's in a panic because his war has spun out of his control. 

The West isn't getting the truth about Operation Epic Failure

Sure, the BBC had a reputation of being trustworthy, but that is now long dead. I stopped watching post-Brexit and notice a pro-Western bias when I do pay attention to them.

Definitely, there is a bias in the western media to promote the war by failing to talk about it openly.

There is a question about US naval resources in the region. Iran claims that both the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald Ford are out of commission. There are rumours another carrier is being sent to the region.

And there is the rumoured 5,000 marines being deployed.

There was enough time to have stopped this since it's hard to hide sending a carrier group to a region, which would have been enough time for a war powers resolution to have been raised. But, no, that didn't happen.

This is a disaster for the United States.

It should never have elected a business person who has gone bankrupt 6 times if it wants the fantasy of running the nation like a business. His track record should have shown he would be a disaster for the country. 

 I'm not sure about the accuracy of the following video, but it makes a very serious allegation about the war effort if it is true.

 

The US Constitution give only Congress the power to declare war. This should only be the prerogative of the legislature, and not in the hands of the executive.

There is only one rogue state in the Middle East that destabilises the region and has nuclear weapons: Israel

Iran is a signatory of a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is responsible for monitoring compliance. Iran has faced scrutiny for its nuclear activities, with recent agreements for inspections being complicated by its restrictions on IAEA access to its facilities.

On the other hand, Israel is not a party to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. It is not subject of IAEA scrutiny. It is also supposed to actually have nuclear weapons.

What's wrong with this picture? 

 The US has just gone on another unjustified war for Israel: this needs to end.

The Glenn Amendment refers to an amendment to the Arms Export Control Act (Section 102). Under the Glenn Amendment, if the President determines that a non-nuclear weapon state [as defined by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)] detonates a nuclear explosive device, certain sanctions apply. The sanctions impose broad-ranging restrictions on various types of assistance, loans, and trade. The DOD Appropriations Act of 2000, signed into law on October 25, 1999, provides authority for the President to waive Glenn Amendment sanctions. 

This policy needs to end. 

Israel needs to be held to the same standard as Iran. 

War Made Easy - How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death

This is Richard Karl Breuer's teaser for the excellent documentary "War Made Easy"by the Media Education Foundation. It features a quote from Oregon Senator Wayne Morse from 1964 that:

The foreign policy belongs to the American people, not the President, who is the administrator of the will of the people. Therefore, the President shouldn't be allowed to wage war without the consent of the people.

 This is why the constitution needs to be amended to make it clear that the president is there to make sure that government runs according to the law made by the people. Or at least the people who are supposed to be representing the people: the legislature.

And only the legislature can declare war.

This current disaster was entered into without any cause or objective. 

It is a prime example of when the War Powers Resolution should be invoked.

This person gets it: why couldn't the US Legislature?

Even Margaret Thatcher held the Israelis accountable for violations of international law.

I  would like to share some excerpts from a letter written by Britain's former prime minister, Margaret Thatcher in condemning Israel's unprovoked attack  which destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor on 7 June 1981. The letter can be found here:
https://archive.margaretthatcher.org/doc02/8DC11F504FAA43199FE1288432BEBD3B.pdf

"I cannot accept that this attack was an essential pre-emptive act of self-defence by Israel. You argue first that Iraq has been in a state of war with Israel since 1948 and that Israel's action was not therefore a breach of international law. But the fact is that the Israeli action was clearly contrary to the prohibition in the UN Charter on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. Iraq has not engaged in active hostilities with Israel for some years. When there has been no armed conflict between the two countries for so long, an unprovoked attack of this kind has in our view no justification under international law. Your argument would logically justify an unprovoked Iraqi attack on an Israeli reactor which, as I said in the House of Commons, I would equally have condemned."

"You say that there is no doubt whatsoever that the Iraqi reactor would shortly have had the capacity to make atomic weapons. I can only point out again, as I did in the House of Commons, that Iraq is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, that the installations in question are subject to international safeguards, that they were regularly inspected (the last occasion being as recently as January) and no breaches of these safeguards were detected. We do not believe that Iraq had the capacity to manufacture fissile material for nuclear weapons, nor that she could have developed a capability for doing so without detection, as the French Government has made clear."

"I recognise of course that Israel has legitimate concerns about her security and that the Israeli Government faces very difficult decisions in ensuring the country's protection. I have made my views on this plain many times. Nor has Iraq so far played a constructive role in the Middle East peace process. There is no doubting her potential hostility to Israel."

"But none of this justifies the unprovoked use of force. The system of international law and international safeguards has been established precisely to avoid the situation which Israel feared and action such as Israel took on 7 June. If that system breaks down - and it will be at risk if flagrant violations of it are not forthrightly condemned - the security of all countries, not only Israel would be at risk. I am particularly concerned that the action taken against Iraq has further set back the chances of progress towards a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, which I believe is the only basis for Israel's security in the long term."

I want to point out that Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has faced scrutiny for its nuclear activities, which some countries believe violate the treaty's terms.

On the other hand, Israel IS NOT a signatory. US aid is supposed to be withheld to such a nation.

Mrs. Thatcher's positions on Israel and Palestine comes as a surprise, because she was not particularly a neocon, but instead a partisan of international law and fairness. She was a Zionist in the sense that she believed in the justice of establishing a Jewish state in the Mideast, but, and here the distinction is critical, with the provision that Palestinians receive meaningful self-determination or statehood as well. And her belief in the sanctity of international law was something she believed should apply to Israel as well.

I have to admit that I have a grudging admiration for Mrs. Thatcher even if I did not like her politics for the most part. 

The office of the US President needs to have its powers limited.

The US is in an illegal war for many different reasons. I'm not going to go into those reasons other than that only Congress can declare war.

But what is to stop a maniac who has power over the military to start a war? There are worse scenarios here as well.

The problem is that Trump has gotten the US into a war and it is hard to stop now that it's started.

The office of the executive should basically be the administration of the laws passed by the legislature. 

 

 

The only rogue state with WMD that destabilises the region is ISRAEL

 There are rumours that JFK was killed because he wanted to stop Israel from getting nuclear weapons.

Now it has the the Samson Option, Israel's alleged nuclear doctrine of last resort, which is where they will use nuclear weapons as a pre-emptive strike. 

 The US needs to stop supporting the state of Israel.

 

And this war could have been avoided.

The Constitution needs to be Amended: The Commander in Chief should not be the President.

 

If the founders should have learned anything from the English Civil War and Standing Armies issue, it should have been that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces should not be the King, President, or whatever you wish to call the executive. It should be separate and under the control of the legislature. It should not be able to act unilaterally unless then is an actual attack on the territory.

Under the constitution, only Congress can declare war. However, that power has been usurped innumerable times by the president. And the result is usually disastrous, as is the current case.

Toss in that the Executive should not use the military without authorisation from the people's representatives.

Article II, Section 2  which states:

    "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" 

 Should be amended to:

"The Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces, and of the  National Guards of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States, shall be nominated by the senior military staff with the appointment ratified by congress. This position is responsible to and reports solely to the Legislature, unless there is a declared national emergency."

The routine administration of the military should be delegated to a Defence Council, a body officially charged with the direction and command of the Armed Forces.

While the administration of the military should be military, the ultimate control would rest with the legislature.  

The power to declare war is vested in the legislature under the US Constitution: they should be the ones to have power over the military.