The Iran war got a second 60-day clock. It runs out on Labor Day. Then w…

Standard

https://youtube.com/shorts/sMhM7OlMEM8?is=bQdzDdbNUlEm1aKq

I asked chatGPT, “Explain exactly what the Founding Fathers intended by “declare War” and whether that phrase means Congress must authorize every military action by the United States.”

Yes. And the historical record is actually quite helpful here. The short answer is:

The Founders did not intend “declare war” to mean that Congress had to pass a formal declaration before the President could ever use the military. But they did intend Congress—not the President—to have the power to decide when the nation would enter a war or initiate major offensive hostilities.

There is an important distinction between starting a war and responding to an attack or conducting military operations once authorized.

1. The original wording was “make war”

At the Constitutional Convention, the draft initially gave Congress the power:

> “To make war.”



That was deliberately changed to:

> “To declare War.”



James Madison explained that the change was intended to leave the President with the ability to “repel sudden attacks.”

That is extremely important.

It means the Founders did not intend the President to have to wait for Congress to assemble and vote if, for example, a foreign army suddenly attacked the United States.

2. But the President wasn’t supposed to be able to start a war

The other side of that distinction is equally important.

The Founders specifically rejected giving the President the general power to decide that the United States would go to war.

James Wilson, speaking during Pennsylvania’s ratification debate, explained the idea this way:

> “the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large”



and emphasized that this arrangement was designed to prevent a single individual from dragging the country into war.

James Madison subsequently wrote that the Constitution had “with studied care vested the question of war in the Legisl[ature].” Thomas Jefferson similarly described the Constitution as transferring the power of “letting loose” war from the executive to the legislature.

So the basic Founders’ model was:

Congress decides whether the nation goes to war.
The President conducts the war as Commander in Chief.

3. Does “declare war” mean Congress must formally declare war?

No.

This is where the modern legal system differs from the simple wording of Article I.

Congress doesn’t have to issue a document literally titled “Declaration of War.”

The Supreme Court recognized very early that Congress could authorize something less than a general war. In Bas v. Tingy (1800), Justice Samuel Chase explained that Congress could authorize a “limited war” restricted by place, objectives, or time.

Consequently, Congress can authorize military force through an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) rather than formally declaring war.

That is how Congress has generally authorized major conflicts since World War II. The United States has not formally declared war since World War II.

4. So does Congress have to authorize every military action?

No.

The Constitution does not require Congress to authorize every deployment, military operation, defensive action, or use of force.

The President has independent authority to respond to an actual sudden attack.

For example, if a foreign power suddenly attacks U.S. territory, the President doesn’t have to wait for Congress to vote before ordering the military to defend the country. That’s precisely the situation Madison identified when the Framers changed “make war” to “declare war.”

There are also circumstances involving limited military actions where presidents have claimed independent constitutional authority.

5. But there’s a major constitutional gray area

This is where things get interesting.

Suppose the President says:

> “We haven’t declared war, but I’m going to send 50,000 troops into another country and conduct months of offensive combat.”



The Constitution doesn’t explicitly answer exactly where the line is between:

presidential military action
and
a war that requires congressional authorization.

Congress says the President’s authority is limited.

The executive branch has historically claimed broader authority.

And the Supreme Court has generally avoided definitively resolving the entire dispute. Congress’s own Constitution Annotated describes this as an ongoing disagreement between the legislative and executive branches.

6. There’s actually a fascinating clue in the Founders’ debate

Roger Sherman objected to changing “make war” to “declare war” because he thought “declare” might narrow Congress’s authority too much.

But Madison’s explanation for the change was essentially:

Congress retains the authority over initiating war, while the President retains the ability to respond immediately to attacks.

That gives us a fairly good picture of the intended division:

Situation Founders’ basic conception

Foreign nation suddenly attacks America President can immediately respond
President wants to initiate a war Congress must authorize it
Congress formally declares war President conducts it as Commander in Chief
Congress authorizes limited military action President can conduct that operation
Routine military deployment/training/positioning Doesn’t necessarily require congressional authorization
President wants to conduct a major, prolonged offensive war without Congress Constitutionally controversial and likely beyond the intended presidential power


The most important distinction

I would phrase the Founders’ intent this way:

> The President was given the power to conduct military operations, but not the unilateral power to decide that the United States would enter a war.



That distinction is supported not only by the constitutional text but by the Convention debate and statements from Madison, Jefferson, Wilson and others.

And there’s an important wrinkle: Congress itself has subsequently interpreted the Constitution through the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which says that introducing U.S. forces into hostilities generally requires a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or an emergency created by an attack on the United States.

If you’re interested, the next question gets even more interesting: I can walk through the exact historical examples from Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Truman, and the Vietnam era and show where Presidents actually used military force without a declaration of war—and whether Congress objected. That makes the constitutional boundary much easier to see.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a92e65ae5608191b028524bd1d3065a

I noticed here in this debate that chat GPT said the modern interpretation differs from the days of the founding fathers. I found that to be the same when it comes to the subject of immigration.

So, like Cody, I just add up 2 + 2 = 4 and in this particular case when you compare the moral compass of the days of the founding fathers with today, it’s obvious which interpretation should prevail. Not only should the moral character of the founders weigh heavily, but also if we want to hold to the Constitution, it’s vital to know what the original intent was in the drafting of that Constitution. So my mind begins to question this war Powers resolution that came about 1973. I would need to do more research on that particular resolution.

I do believe Cody and I are unified in the concept that this war with Iran is not a good thing and should not have been started by President Trump. But I would admit I’m just layman and there’s lots of things that I am unaware of. But none should interpret that to disparage the power of we the people. Rather it’s an indicator of my need to educate myself properly. President Thomas Jefferson said, “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. And if we think they’re not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

But to me the Constitution is pretty clear. And I like what chat GPT gave for insights from the founding fathers. Basically in a nutshell Congress only has the power to declare war but the founders understood that that power to declare war does not exclude the president from acting on behalf of the nation to defend her against a sudden attack. This war with Iran is not in that category. The President started the war with Iran. Furthermore I question the whole concept of rich men playing chess with this Iran war. I remember seeing one of the congressmen questioning one of the admirals why he couldn’t keep the strait of Hormuz open when his ancestors had done so for at least 50 or more years.

Qui Bono… Follow the money.

James Madison. “A standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”  He also said, “the means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans, it was a standing maxim to excite war whenever revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept under the pretext of defending have enslaved the people.” Brian Young says (Jan 12/26 in context of the militarized ICE invasion of Minneapolis, MN), “How about under the pretext of defending the people against immigrants?”  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqNYsRqLc0A

Militarized forces, abroad in Iran, OR domestic in America, as IS the case with DHS/ICE/CBP…as Madison says, “…will not long be safe companions to liberty.” This is not to disparage a military, but it points to the DANGERS of military muscle. We live in a demoralized generation. We have lost our moral compass. This serves the turbo charge the dangers.

Sam Adams said, “A standing army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the liberties of the people.”

David Barton cites John Jay who said READ. STUDY, TEACH, KNOW TO PERCEIVE, DEFEND, ASSERT. “Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country, and teach the rising generation to be free. By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.” Barton then says, now we have to assert that the judiciary is NOT the supreme branch. It does not get to make law.