December 28, 2005


Today's editorial page of The Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece by Robert F. Turner on FISA and the Constitution. Among the several interesting points he makes is that Congress may authorize military action by resolution without the necessity of a formal declaration of war, citing Bas v. Tingy (1800) and Talbot v. Seamon (1801). There is a libertarian morning talk radio host in Norfolk whose program I listen to more often than not who seems to think the GWOT is unlawful because there has been no formal declaration of war. I suspect that the point comes up rather frequently among the anti-war crowd.

Posted by LMC at December 28, 2005 02:56 PM | TrackBack

Speaking for only my own anti-war stance, doesn't really matter what was declared (I don't see this coming up much in liberal land). The invasion of Iraq is considered a Geneva Conventions violation (attacking and invading a non-threatening country) and the GWOT is seen as both cover for imperial ambitions in the Middle East and a tool for securing party power and rolling back civil liberties (double bonus). As far as I can tell, no actions of this administration have actually made us any safer in terms of terrorism. 9/11 commission said as much a couple of months ago.

Posted by: LB Buddy at December 28, 2005 08:09 PM