“The post so nice, he put it up twice.”

What are you, distracted or something?

I am not American,but in common law and laws regarding arrest and search, reasonable suspicion is enough for arrest or search. Exibits eg WMD will be required for prosecution in court, so if you want to be sure that in order to make arrest you want to be sure that you need 100% proof of evidence to make arrest, I am afraid You will prosecute few or no criminal because arrest and search proceed prosecution in a court of law. In short, For search to succed, suspet needs to comply or force must be used, Enforcer needs only reasonable suspicion. In this case not only reasonable suspicion exists but evidence(direct and circumstatial) of 12 years is in abundace.

I’m not sure what “as a practical matter” means. The Constitution was not amended over the last 63 in any way that would affect the war power. Some argue that if Congress doesn’t use the magic words “we declare war,” it isn’t a declaration of war. I don’t buy that, as the Constitution is silent as to what form a declaration of war should take. I’m OK with a Congressional “authorization of force,” because I think that that is a declaration of war. If it’s not, then it’s a pointless exercise; might as well let the President go out and fight his battles on his own.

Your alternative explanation is good – in fact, it’s part of the reason why I would argue that this “authorization of force” was in fact a declaration of war. Even if it wasn’t, it takes a lot of political chutzpah to vote for any resolution that says the President shall have the authority to do X, and then complain about the President actually exercising that authority and doing X.

Is it any wonder that no Presdient has been happy about the “War Powers Act” of the 70′s? Usually it is invoked in claiming that the President cannot use troops withiout Congressional OK (as Clinton did in Kosovo and Bush did in Panama). All presidents since, including Jimmy Carter, have felt the WPA prevents them from being Commander-in-Chief and that it is unconstitutional.

In this instance it was used in the affirmative, but even here it muddies up the issue of who can declare war, if war it is.

On the other hand, without such a law, Presidents would do the Kosovo/Panama/Grenada thing more often, and never ask for a Congressional OK until they needed money (which Congress will almost always give with troops in harm’s way).

My take? The Consitution is unworkable in its present form and Congress has created an alternative that seems to work. I note the courts don’t seem to want to overturn it anytime soon.

Al–

And your point?

Remember, the first country the US invaded in WW2 was Morocco, which I doubt was named in any resolution.

Use of force authorizations are not declarations of war. Besides holding the authority to declare war, congress also holds the purse strings of the military.

Military engagements without a full “Declaration of War” are not new, nor a result of the War Powers Act. Different animals; apples and oranges; fruit and vegetables and all that.

FWIW, congress told the President after 9/11 and again in October 2002, you do whatever you think is best and we’ll support you. Now Kerry and Edwards are saying that’s not what they meant, Kerry had conditions in his Senate floor oratory that weren’t in the bill, and they definitely don’t support the President anymore.

As Gomer Pyle might say, “Sir-Prize, Sir-Prize, Sir-Prize.”

Doesn’t it make sense that these would have to be phrased in a somewhat open-ended way? It seems to me that some allowance should be made for last-minute diplomacy (or compliance with U.N. resolutions) to avoid war. Therefore wouldn’t these things tend to be phrased as authorizations, rather than as outright declarations?–in the modern age, would be unlikely to have the legislators phrase it in such a way that the President isn’t given any option? I just think they’re always going to leave an “out,” rather than telling the President he has to make war whether he likes it or not . . .

“Mr. President, I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. And I will vote “yes” because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the Administration, including the President, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world’s case against Saddam Hussein. As the President made clear earlier this week, “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” It means that “America speaks with one voice.”

I can’t interpret these words as a declaration of war. Help me out, here.