War Powers Act - A pragmatic Executive Branch Tool versus Constitutional Intent

[SkywardET]

Obviously you disagree with it, but it is not meaningless psycho-babble. It's called rhetoric, and it's an interpretation of the situation we are in. Although one cannot foresee the future, I would bet a gold coin that we will never experience an Executive administration in our lifetime that relinquishes any real power, and likewise for the Legislature the vast majority of the time. Nor do I think that the intentions or the words of the founders or the Constitution will have much to do with our future. We are "past that" and are living in a modern time under different rules, yet those rules are hardly concrete. Hence the rule of man being different from the rule of law.

Furthermore, I did not say Amendments were easy; just that they are not as difficult as you suggest. There is a fairly clear framework to work with, and working around it is not the best solution, in my view. On average, we've had one at a rate of about every four years. If you count the Bill of Rights as one, then we've had one about every 12 years. We've had at least one in our lifetimes.

Additionally, I think you are wrong about there not being a difference between a formal DoW and Congressional support for military action. A formal DoW or a formal equivalent (UNSC "DoW") functionally promotes an eventual end state; a state in which one nation capitulates or both agree to terms. Now, four years longer than our involvement in WW2, and about seven years longer than Desert Storm, we don't seem surprised about our long wars in this fast-paced age. "The nature of the enemy necessitates our strategy." Right...
It's a curious, and dubious, situation.

 

[kmac]

Additionally, I think you are wrong about there not being a difference between a formal DoW and Congressional support for military action...

A DoW is merely a legal statement. Most of its significance is stripped because of the Geneva Conventions (and to a lesser extent Hague). It doesn't matter if a DoW exists, the rights of the GC supercede any given by a DoW. However, as I mentioned above, the Alien Enemy Act comes into play if Congress declares war but not otherwise*.

*That exception is if the US is invaded. The President has the right to use the powers in the Alien Enemy Act without congressional approval.

 

[Brett327]

Obviously you disagree with it, but it is not meaningless psycho-babble. It's called rhetoric, and it's an interpretation of the situation we are in. Although one cannot foresee the future, I would bet a gold coin that we will never experience an Executive administration in our lifetime that relinquishes any real power, and likewise for the Legislature the vast majority of the time. Nor do I think that the intentions or the words of the founders or the Constitution will have much to do with our future. We are "past that" and are living in a modern time under different rules, yet those rules are hardly concrete. Hence the rule of man being different from the rule of law.

Furthermore, I did not say Amendments were easy; just that they are not as difficult as you suggest. There is a fairly clear framework to work with, and working around it is not the best solution, in my view. On average, we've had one at a rate of about every four years. If you count the Bill of Rights as one, then we've had one about every 12 years. We've had at least one in our lifetimes.

Additionally, I think you are wrong about there not being a difference between a formal DoW and Congressional support for military action. A formal DoW or a formal equivalent (UNSC "DoW") functionally promotes an eventual end state; a state in which one nation capitulates or both agree to terms. Now, four years longer than our involvement in WW2, and about seven years longer than Desert Storm, we don't seem surprised about our long wars in this fast-paced age. "The nature of the enemy necessitates our strategy." Right...
It's a curious, and dubious, situation.

Well, after considering the body of your posts here, I'm going to chalk up you position to garden variety dissatisfaction with the status quo. Your status as a Ron Paul disciple serves to further illustrate this. I can't persuade you away from your idealistic (and unrealistic) view of how things should and shouldn't operate within our government. I believe you oversimplify these issues to fit your own world-view without considering the more pragmatic big picture. If I can shift away from theory for a moment, this pragmatic, big-picture attitude is something you're going to have to work on if you hope to be a successful Naval Officer. Big picture realities are always more complex than abstract theory and difficult compromises are almost always necessary to achieve a satisfactory (albeit sub-optimal) outcome to many of the issues you will face in your career. These are skills you will learn in time. I just ask that you keep an open mind as you go forth.

Brett

 

[squorch2]

Short version: Is this the hill you want to die on?

 

[SkywardET]

Short version: Is this the hill you want to die on?

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I have an idea, but would prefer a clarification.

Brett--I consider myself to be a realist, but I will only compromise so far. I think perhaps some realists have made a few too many compromises. While I will cede that big decisions always involve a certain higher level of complexity, the underlying principles involved are usually pretty simple.

 

[bert]

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I have an idea, but would prefer a clarification.

Brett--I consider myself to be a realist, but I will only compromise so far. I think perhaps some realists have made a few too many compromises. While I will cede that big decisions always involve a certain higher level of complexity, the underlying principles involved are usually pretty simple.

And what if those "simple" principles are contradictory? (Take "warrantless wiretapping", for an easy one: privacy is good, terrorism is bad, two principles as simple as you could hope for...).

Believe it or not we are not just making fun of your belief in Ron Paul (though we could). Brett gave you some good advice that will help you as a commissioned officer. I don't think any of us have an issue with you wanting things to be that simple, but we will correct you if you try to claim that they really are that simple.

 

[Brett327]

I consider myself to be a realist

I consider you an idealist - kind of the opposite of a realist. How do you reconcile that? I would also put Ron Paul at the far extreme end of the idealist spectrum, as would most others. At least be frank with yourself as to where your values stand on that continuum.

Brett

 

[squorch2]

Basically, you have to choose your battles... the pragmatic guy that gets the job - however that is defined by your boss - done will go much farther than the guy who balks due to some preconceived notion.

 

[SkywardET]

And what if those "simple" principles are contradictory? (Take "warrantless wiretapping", for an easy one: privacy is good, terrorism is bad, two principles as simple as you could hope for...).

That is a good example, and a way to separate people with different world views. Security versus freedom is one of the penultimate "pragmatism vs idealism" contests, and in that choice, I will purchase stock in the idealist team. I would be in good company, though.

However, that specific choice is one made almost in the dark. The full extent of the good done and the harm caused will probably never be known outside of a small circle of people.

Believe it or not we are not just making fun of your belief in Ron Paul (though we could). Brett gave you some good advice that will help you as a commissioned officer. I don't think any of us have an issue with you wanting things to be that simple, but we will correct you if you try to claim that they really are that simple.

I'm not a complete Paultard. However, I think the crux of the matter, since this thread seems to be more about me now, is that I have yet to be in a position where I had to choose between idealism and pragmatism in a significant way. So for the time being at least, I will retain my idealism. Now if you want to speak of career decisions, I think I have a pretty good handle on that and I don't have any trouble reconciling any of it, nor do I have trouble obeying lawful orders. Perhaps there's a schism between actions done in the real world and words typed through an Internet avatar, but I don't think so.

I would also argue that if you look closely at Ron Paul's actions, he does recognize reality and respond accordingly. For instance, he commits political suicide a lot, yet he keeps getting re-elected because, according to one article I read, he travels "300 miles a day" in his large rural district attending an enormous amount of local events such as weddings, etc.

 

[Random8145]

Now, four years longer than our involvement in WW2, and about seven years longer than Desert Storm, we don't seem surprised about our long wars in this fast-paced age. "The nature of the enemy necessitates our strategy." Right...It's a curious, and dubious, situation.

I am no expert on this, but from what I have read before, usually counter-insurgency wars take around nine to ten years to complete...? World War II was a conventional war, whereas Iraq and Afghanistan are unconventional wars.

Also remember, the U.S. was still involved in Europe for awhile after World War II. I had read somewhere (I do not remember the source unfortunately) that after WWII, Nazi loyalists carried out guerilla attacks against American and Soviet troops occupying Germany for up to ten years before finally being put down.

If that was the case, such a thing might have been rather very similar to our current Iraq War and Afghanistan war, and just because WWII killed so many people, it is forgotten.

And also remember, while World War II might have been shorter, it also resulted in far more deaths!

And what if those "simple" principles are contradictory? (Take "warrantless wiretapping", for an easy one: privacy is good, terrorism is bad, two principles as simple as you could hope for...).

Is it really warrantless wiretapping? From what I understand, it is the interception of international signals coming in from overseas. If the government wants to wiretap anyone domestically, they need a warrant. There was a loophole found I think that would have allowed the government to get around this if they really wished, but that loophole has since been closed.