Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11
"The Congress shall have Power... To declare War"

“The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated on the subject and authorized such a measure.” - George Washington
China Salon |Alvin Graylin | The U.S. - China AI Arms Race | May 28th | 7pm
Once a year we dedicate a salon to the evolving dynamics of the U.S. - China relationship. This China salon will focus on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and the current arms race we are in. Our featured speaker, Alvin Wang Graylin (汪丛青) is a technology pioneer, investor and author. He studied AI at MIT and the University of Washington in the 1990s, and is currently a Digital Fellow at Stanford’s Human-Centered AI Lab. He has held leadership roles in the U.S., China, and Taiwan in the semiconductor, AI, cybersecurity, XR industries for more than three decades.

In his new book “Our Next Reality,” Alvin explores AI’s transformative benefits and unexpected dark sides. Graylin’s deep understanding of both the U.S. and Chinese technology landscapes gives him rare insights into AI’s strategic implications for U.S.-China relations. The Committee’s own Chas Freeman will introduce Alvin.

Three rules should govern our relationship. Avoid a war with China.  Avoid a war with China. Avoid a war with China. The current US-China relationship is deteriorating rapidly as the trade war escalates and tension grows around Taiwan. Graylin argues that AI may create an opportunity to deescalate the rivalry in an AI arms race that cannot have any winners.
Empire Salon | Bruce Fein | To Faithfully Execute the Laws | April 10th 2025
Empire Salon | Bruce Fein | The Pardon Power | March 27th 2025 

NATO -- The Case to Get Out Now

David Stockman
The Committee for the Republic
January 29, 2025
nato---the_case_to_get_out_now_full_speech.pdf
File Size: 199 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Reflections on the United States Constitution and an Epidemic of Constitutional Illiteracy

Bruce Fein
The Committee for the Republic
November 18, 2024
 
Something is rotten in the United States of America.
It is not President-elect Donald Trump.
It is not defeated Democrat candidate Kamala Harris.
It is not the Republican Party.
It is not the Democratic Party.
It is not Congress.
It is not the multi-trillion-dollar military-industrial-security complex.
 
It is us.
 
We have idled amidst an epidemic of constitutional illiteracy.  We have shied denouncing and opposing at every turn the crumbling of separation of powers in favor of a presidency indistinguishable from dictatorship. Civic courage is as rare as unicorns. Among other things, we have acquiesced in extra-constitutional presidential power to initiate nuclear war, to order the assassination of any person the President secretly speculates might become a national security threat, and to spy on the “not-yet-guilty” without warrants taking George Orwell to a new level.
 
President Grover Cleveland’s first inaugural address underscored the duty of every citizen to master the United States Constitution and to hold elected officials accountable for infidelity.  He explained, “this is the price of our liberty and the inspiration of our faith in the Republic.”
 
We have refused to pay the price.  You reap what you sow.    
 
Poof of our constitutional illiteracy is the orthodoxy that the United States is a democracy—a belief as misplaced as the geocentric theory of the universe. The Constitution’s architects deplored democracy.  John Adams, first Vice President and second President, expressed the consensus: “Democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes and exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Thomas Jefferson, scorning democracy in his Notes of the State of Virginia, opined that 173 despots would be as oppressive as one.  James Madison’s notes on the constitutional convention are devoid of the word “democracy.”  Mr. Madison argued that even if every Athenian citizen were a Socrates, a collection of them all would still be a mob.
 
The Constitution itself is a repudiation of democracy.  It establishes legal norms that even unanimity cannot transgress. They depend on the outcome of no elections. Fourteen procedural features of the Constitution reject majority rule—a structural bill of rights to forestall tyranny.  We in this room are clueless, proof of our constitutional illiteracy.

  1. A two-chamber legislature.
  2. Two-year terms for House members and six-year terms for Senators.
  3. Replacing only one-third of Senators every two years.
  4. Equal state representation in the Senate but representation by population in the House.
  5. Prohibiting an amendment to change equal state representation in the Senate.
  6. Favoring slave states over free states in the House by treating disenfranchised slaves as three-fifths of a person.
  7. The Electoral College which gives disproportionate weight to less populous states and disfavors more populous states.
  8. Permitting presidential electors to disregard voters who elected them.
  9. The qualified veto of the President subject to an override by two-thirds of the House and Senate.
  10. Senate confirmation of principal officers appointed by the President.
  11. Treaties requiring a two-thirds Senate majority for ratification.
  12. Amendments requiring two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
  13. The United States Supreme Court and the federal judiciary generally appointed subject to Senate confirmation not elected.
  14. The Supreme Court empowered to void acts of Congress or the President as unconstitutional irrespective of their political popularity.
 
Constitutional illiteracy finds expression in the wildly popular Broadway Musical Hamilton.  It completely miscasts the protagonist.  The real Hamilton was a royalist, not a democrat. He cajoled George Washington three times to become a king without result.  He was evicted from the constitutional convention for advocating a lifetime presidency.  He was appointed a major general in the United States Army in anticipation of a war with France.  The Constitution was the brainchild of Madison not Hamilton.
 
Notwithstanding Tom Brokow, the Founders were the greatest generation by many orders of magnitude.  It was the only generation in history emancipated from species narcissism.  It was the only generation that understood the universal depravity of mankind that could only be kept from succumbing to tyranny, war, and venality by pitting institutional ambition against ambition, bad guys against bad guys via separation of powers blocking democracy. Otherwise, they knew, liberty, peace, and the rule of law would be destroyed for themselves and their posterity. Jefferson explained, “[I]n questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” The Founders knew they were not God’s new chosen people.
 
The Constitution began to crumble brick by brick when the founding generation passed, constitutional illiteracy began to metastasize, and presidential impeachable offenses proliferated with impunity.  
 
President James K. Polk resorted to annexing Texas in 1845 by statute in lieu of a constitutionally required treaty requiring a two-thirds Sente because that threshold was beyond political reach. That circumvention was Mr. Polk’s first impeachable offense in the eyes of the Constitution’s authors. Delegate George Mason at the constitutional convention declared that attempts to subvert the Constitution would be impeachable.  President Polk committed a second impeachable offense in 1846 by duping Congress into declaring war against Mexico by falsely accusing the Mexican army of killing an American soldier on American soil.
 
The Constitution’s authors would have impeached President William McKinley for misleading Congress about the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor to justify the Spanish-American War and for suppressing the right of Filipinos to self-determination by force of arms. They would have impeached President Theordore Roosevelt for invading Panama to secure its independence from Colombia without a congressional declaration of war to build and operate the Panama Canal. They would have impeached President Woodrow Wilson for invading Mexico and Haiti without a congressional declaration of war, for lying about the sinking of the Lusitania and German submarine warfare to deceive Congress into declaring war against Germany in World War I, for deploying troops in Russia to oppose communism, protect U.S. economic interests, and to support White Russians against the Bolsheviks, and for locking up war opponents like presidential candidate Eugene Debs.
 
The Constitution’s framers would have impeached President Calvin Coolidge for dispatching soldiers to Nicaragua against Cesar Sandino without a congressional declaration of war. President Herbert Hoover would have been impeached by the framers for continuing that unconstitutional, presidential, undeclared war.  They would have impeached President Franklin D. Roosevelt for the illegal destroyers-for-bases deal with Great Britian, deploying troops to Iceland and Greenland in violation of federal statutes, seeking to pack the United States Supreme Court, illegal spying or prosecution of political opponents, for example, Andrew Mellon, lying over the USS Greer attack on Nazi submarines to provoke the nation to war, and racist concentration camps for loyal Japanese Americans justified including lying to the United States Supreme Court in Hirabayashi v. United States and Korematsu v. United States.
 
The founders would have impeached President Harry Truman over his war crimes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, his unconstitutional war against North Korea-China, and for his Loyalty Board to suppress political dissent.  They would have impeached President Eisenhower over substituting executive agreements with Franco’s Spain in lieu of a defense treaty because a two-thirds vote in the Senate was a non-starter since Franco befriended Hitler during World War II. They would have also impeached Eisenhower for overthrowing Iran’s popularly elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and Guatemala’s Jacobo Arbenz in 1954,
 
President John F. Kennedy would have been impeached by the founders over attempted assassinations, the Bay of Pigs fiasco without a declaration of war, the secret war in Laos, and his green light for the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem.
 
President Lyndon Johnson would have been impeached by the founders for lying about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and commencing an extra-constitutional war against North Vietnam, invading the Dominican Republic without a congressional declaration of war, and private meetings in the White House with Justice Abe Fortas to discuss issues that might come before the Supreme Court.
 
In addition to his multiple Watergate crimes, the founders would have impeached President Richard Nixon for continuing an unconstitutional war in Vietnam and lying to Congress about expanding the war to Cambodia, and for using the CIA to orchestrate the overthrow of Chile’s President Salvador Allende.
 
President Jimmy Carter would have been impeached by the framers by declaring that he would unilaterally commence war if oil from the Persian Gulf were curtailed:  “Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
 
President Ronald Reagan would have been impeached by the founders for his unconstitutional war against Grenada and for failing to superintend his subordinates in seeking to circumvent the Boland Amendment through the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran and diverting the proceeds to the Contras in Nicaragua.
 
President George H.W. Bush would have been impeached by the founders for unconstitutional wars in Panama and Kuwait.
 
President Bill Clinton would have been impeached by the founders not only over perjury and obstruction of justice in Monicagate but for unconstitutional wars in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and Somalia.
 
President George W. Bush would have been impeached by the founders over unconstitutional wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, assassinations, torture, illegal surveillance, kidnapping, and indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo Bay.
 
President Barak Obama would have been impeached by the framers for continuing President Bush’s unconstitutional wars, starting a new unconstitutional war in Libya, drone assassinations, invoking state secrets to conceal government murders, kidnapping, or torture, unconstitutional surveillance including criminal charges against Ed Snowden for revealing government crimes, and resorting to executive orders or memoranda to effectuate changes in the immigration laws to circumvent Congress.
 
President Donald Trump would have been impeached by the founders for continuing unconstitutional wars he inherited, defying hundreds of congressional subpoenas, diverting monies appropriated by Congress for different uses to build a wall with Mexico and pay unemployment compensation, bribery, insurrection, and wielding the pardon power to shield his political friends.
 
President Joe Biden would have been impeached by the founders for continuing unconstitutional wars he inherited, becoming a co-belligerent with Ukraine against Russia without a declaration of war, becoming a combatant, co-combatant, or co-belligerent with Israel against Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq without congressional declarations of war, flouting six statutes requiring termination of military assistance to Israel for engaging in egregious violations of human rights or blocking the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid, and continuing dragnet surveillance of Americans without warrants or probable cause to believe crime is afoot.
 
None of this narrative is secret.  Everything is in the public domain.  Citizens are dutybound to know it like the back of their hands, the alphabet, and the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
Let’s stop scapegoating.  We citizens are the greatest threat to the United States. We live with the delusion that we can indulge constitutional illiteracy without paying the price of a lawless government irrespective of its partisan coloration.  Abaham Lincoln spotted this threat almost two centuries ago in his Lyceum address: “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
 
We are Lincoln’s worst nightmare come true.  What will be said of us because of our self-inflicted constitutional illiteracy is what Edward Gibbon said of Athenians upon their loss of freedom:
 
“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”

In memory of Committee for the Republic co-founder and President, William Nitze.
April 11, 2021

Restore the Constitution

Committee Vice Chairman Bruce Fein has written a detailed guideline for restoring the balance of power between the three branches of our government. Read it here: Nader.org
constitutionrestorationproject.pdf
File Size: 718 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Our letter to Merrick Garland

merrickgarland.pdf
File Size: 262 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
March 3, 2021
Honorable Merrick Garland
Attorney General-Designate
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
 
  Re:  Presidential compliance with the Declare War Clause—President Joe Biden’s February 25, 2021 air strike against Syria and continuation of unconstitutional presidential wars
  Dear Attorney General-Designate Garland:
  During your confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you explained: “The Attorney General takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am mindful of the tremendous responsibility that comes with this role.”
  The attached Memorandum for the Attorney General underscores that the Constitution’s Declare War Clause, as understood by its authors, ratifiers, and President Joe Biden,
entrusts exclusively to Congress responsibility for deciding whether to use the armed forces in an offensive capacity, leaving to the executive the authority to respond to sudden attacks against the United States that have already broken the peace.
  Without congressional authority, on February 25, 2021, President Biden ordered an attack against Syria featuring two F-15E Strike Eagles dropping seven precision guided munitions on Abu Karmal.  The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines the crime of aggression to include: “Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State.”
  As the attached Memorandum persuasively demonstrates, your pledge to the Senate Judiciary Committee will oblige you as Attorney General to advise President Biden that the air strike in Syria violated the Declare War Clause and constituted an impeachable offense under Mr. Biden’s own standards.  The Memorandum further demonstrates that your oath will oblige you to advise President Biden that ongoing presidential wars in Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and against Al Qaeda and ISIS transgress the Declare War Clause and must cease absent prompt congressional declarations of war.
  Telling a president “No” requires political courage.  But capitulation to the President at the expense of the Constitution is not an option.  During World War II, Attorney General Francis Biddle initially opposed odious concentration camps for 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry. But he acquiesced without protest to accommodate President Franklin Roosevelt.  Mr. Biddle explained in his 1962 Memoir: “The decision had been made by the President.  It was a matter of military judgment. I did not think I should oppose it further.”
  Mr. Biddle’s faint-heartedness should not be repeated.
  Sincerely,

John Henry
Chairman
Bruce Fein
Vice Chairman

Our letter to President Joe Biden

biden.pdf
File Size: 266 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
January 18, 2021
President-elect Joe R. Biden, Jr.
Biden-Harris Transition
1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
   Dear President-Elect Biden:
   The Committee for the Republic congratulates you for the Electoral College's certification that you have been elected President of the United States to be inaugurated January 20, 2021. We expect the Constitution will begin a long journey back to restoration under your stewardship.
   On that score, the Committee strongly urges you to announce in your inaugural address that you will terminate within 60 days any use of the United States armed forces to participate directly, indirectly, or otherwise, either as a belligerent or co-belligerent, in the ongoing wars in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and against Al Qaeda and ISIS for the express reason that the Declare War Clause of the Constitution entrusts exclusively to Congress responsibility for deciding whether to use the armed forces in an offensive capacity. Congress has never mandated the use of the armed forces offensively against any of these nations or non-state actors. Indeed, Congress voted against our unilateral military misadventure in Yemen in passing S.J. Res. 7, vetoed by President Donald Trump on April 16, 2019.
   The Declare War Clause permits no delegation of congressional authority over war to the President. Indeed, the premise of the Clause is that the President would be an untrustworthy steward of the war power because of the constant temptation to concoct excuses for belligerency to aggrandize executive power. James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated:
   "Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be conunenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws."
   You formerly served as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You understand that the Constitution's framers unanimously understood that only Congress was empowered take the nation from a state of peace to a state of war, leaving the President authority to respond in self-defense to sudden attacks that had already broken the peace. President George Washington, who presided over the creation of the Constitution, spoke for every participant in explaining:
   "The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore, no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure."
   As a presidential candidate in 2007, echoing President Washington, you adamantly declared in an exchange with Chris Matthews on NBC that a president who initiates war or otherwise uses the armed forces offensively without a prior declaration of war by Congress commits an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor justifying removal from office.
   MATTHEWS: You said that if the president of the United States had launched an attack on Iran without congressional approval, it would have been an impeachable offense.
   BIDEN: Absolutely.
   MATTHEWS: Do you want to review that comment you made? Well, how do you stand on that now?
   BIDEN: Yes, I do. I want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don't say those things lightly, Chris. You've known me for a long time. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years, or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know.
   So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United States Senate, pointing out the president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people, unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked.
   And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him.
   Your exchange with Mr. Matthews was not a slip of the tongue. During a 2007 New Hampshire town meeting, you stated categorically: “I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear. If [President George W. Bush attacks Iran without congressional authorization] I will move to impeach him."
   Your enlightened understanding of the Declare War Clause is reflected in the Committee's collaboration with the late Congressman Walter Jones (R.-N.C.) and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) to introduce H.Res. 922 (115th Cong.), and H.Res. 411 (116th Cong.), respectively, to define and to make unconstitutional presidential wars impeachable offenses.
   Article II, Section l, Clause 7 of the Constitution requires you, as a condition of assuming office, to take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will… to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." According to your own longstanding understanding of the Declare War Clause, we expect you, promptly after your inauguration, to inform Congress that the nine ongoing unconstitutional presidential wars will be terminated within 60 days unless declarations of war are enacted before then.
   You can end our constitutional crisis by reclaiming the cornerstone of separation of powers, breaking the vicious cycle of congressional abdication and executive usurpation. By honoring your constitutional understanding, you can begin the long journey back in restoring the intended equilibrium between the two political branches. History will remember you for renouncing an imperial presidency. For that, you will have earned our highest praise and the reverence of our posterity.

Sincerely,
 
John Henry
Chairman
Bruce Fein
Vice Chairman

The Committee for the Republic in The Nation

For 15 years, the Committee for the Republic has been a dissenting voice of sanity and civility in Washington. Read more....

Our Plan to End Presidential Wars

The purpose of the “No Presidential Wars” project is to force Members of Congress to honor their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution. The project is forward-looking only:  to insure prospectively that both Congress and the President comply with the Constitution’s allocation of war powers—especially the exclusive responsibility of Congress for making decisions that change the condition of the nation from peace to war.  The project refrains from taking up arms against the past.
 
Its lodestar is President George Washington, who presided over the constitutional convention and elaborated about responsibility for war: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated on the subject and authorized such a measure.”
 
Up until the present, the fog of war has been chronically matched by a fog in defining war and allocating war powers under the Constitution.  The law should warn before it strikes.  It would be unfair to any President to change the de facto or de jure constitutional rules of the game regarding presidential wars without defining them with reasonable specificity and applying them only prospectively, not retroactively.    
 
The project thus aims to have the House pass a resolution that defines presidential wars under the Constitution going forward and declares them unconstitutional in violation of Article I, section 8, clause 11 (Declare War Clause). The project also aims to remedy unconstitutional presidential wars with a House prospective resolution warning the President that such wars will be deemed high crimes and misdemeanors under Article II, section 4 of the Constitution resulting in his or her impeachment, conviction, and removal from office. 
 
The Constitution’s authors unanimously fastened responsibility for taking the nation from a state of peace to a state of war on Congress in the Declare War Clause. The President was prohibited from initiating war as opposed to responding to a sudden attack against the United States or declarations of war against us by a foreign enemy.  In the latter cases, the decision or actions which change the condition of the United States from a state of peace to a state or war are not those of the President, whom the Constitution distrusts in such matters, but those of a third party with no incentive to concoct excuses for placing the United States on a war footing.
 
Commencing war is excluded from the President’s express or implied powers in Article II. And that was not because it was thought an inherent executive power that need not be enumerated. If that had been the case, the express Article II power to receive Ambassadors and other Public Ministers would have been superfluous.

The Constitution highly disfavors war except in self-defense for manifold reasons.  War sounds the death knell to the rule of law.  As Cicero observed, “[I]n times of war, the law falls silent.”  War legalizes what is customarily first-degree murder, i.e., killings unjustified by reasonably believed imminent threats to life or serious bodily injury.  At present, the President of the United States exercises the power to play prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner to kill any person on the planet that he decides in secret is an imminent danger to the national security based on secret, untested evidence.  That unchecked executive power is vastly greater than the tyrannical authorities indicted against King George III in the Declaration of Independence.
 
“War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war a physical force is to be created, and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions, and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.
Hence it has grown into an axiom that the executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war: hence it is the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence.”
 
Congress was chosen as the depositary of the war power because legislative bodies are highly risk-averse talking shops.  Members do not profit politically from war, and their powers vis-à-vis the White House diminish. The Constitution’s authors were convinced that Congress would declare war and change the condition of the nation from peace to war only in response to actual or perceived aggression against the United States.  Experience has proven them right. In 227 years, Congress has declared war in only five conflicts:  the War of1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II.

The demarcation line between a President’s constitutional use of military force short of war and use of military force constituting war triggering the Declare War Clause may be drawn prospectively by Congress with manageable specificity that satisfies the due process imperative of fair warning. The House and Senate by concurrent resolution should define war as the employment of military force against a foreign nation or non-state actor beyond what is reasonably necessary to defend or retaliate against their actual or imminent aggression against the United States.  Under this standard, President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 retaliatory bombing raid against Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi for his complicity in a bombing of a West Berlin disco that killed two American off-duty soldiers was not war.  The use of force was reasonably proportional to Libya’s provocation. 

Congress must also define co-belligerency for purposes of the Declare War Clause.  Under international law, a nation’s systematic or substantial supply of war materials, military support (including intelligence or training), military troops or financial assistance in association or common cause with another belligerent would make it a co-belligerent.  It then becomes a legitimate target of hostilities as if it were the belligerent.  The House and Senate by concurrent resolution prospectively should so define co-belligerency accordingly to provide fair warning to the President of when a congressional declaration of co-belligerency will be necessary to comply with the Declare War Clause and avoid impeachment, conviction, and removal from office.

Strict adherence to the Declare War Clause will not make the United States pacifist.  If an external threat genuinely justifies the nation in crossing the Rubicon from peace to war, Congress should easily be convinced by the President to declare war.  Members of Congress collectively represent the people every bit as much as the President does. They have no incentive to stand idly by while their constituents are attacked by an enemy.

no_presidential_wars_pledge.pdf
File Size: 325 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
npw_resolution.pdf
File Size: 449 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Subscribe to event invitation list:

We respect your email privacy

Vertical Divider

Home

Copyright © 2024