The concept of "imminent attack" -- referenced by Chris Matthews and Ron Paul in that clip -- is crucial here.
In 1787, "imminent" could (plausibly) mean two or three months away. As late as 1941, it still meant several hours or maybe a few days. In 2011, it means a few minutes. I hope we can all agree that this has a great impact on the ability of the Congress to conduct a meaningful debate (and, of course, a subsequent vote) on a proposed Declaration of War in a timely basis. Some people may insist that Congressional debate + vote take place prior to the Chief Executive "doing something" to counter the "imminent threat" (which may be undefined or unknown to the public at that particular moment). But I think most Americans would insist the Executive take whatever steps seems necessary in that moment, even if the Congress has not signed off on it.
(02-14-2011 11:28 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: The concept of "imminent attack" -- referenced by Chris Matthews and Ron Paul in that clip -- is crucial here.
In 1787, "imminent" could (plausibly) mean two or three months away. As late as 1941, it still meant several hours or maybe a few days. In 2011, it means a few minutes. I hope we can all agree that this has a great impact on the ability of the Congress to conduct a meaningful debate (and, of course, a subsequent vote) on a proposed Declaration of War in a timely basis. Some people may insist that Congressional debate + vote take place prior to the Chief Executive "doing something" to counter the "imminent threat" (which may be undefined or unknown to the public at that particular moment). But I think most Americans would insist the Executive take whatever steps seems necessary in that moment, even if the Congress has not signed off on it.
Yes, but that's a far cry from the circumstances around Afghanistan and Iraq.