Should Congress Step Up to Declare War without needing to be Asked?

   I think it neat President Obama today said he will seek Congressional authorization for proposed action in Syria. Too often, military intervention has begun before approval was obtained.
   But, what of this thought: Why does Congress need to wait for an invitation before voting on whether to enter an armed conflict? If the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, shouldn't Congress be taking the initiative?
   Yet, I don't believe of any of the times war has been declared, Congress took up the issue without being asked.
   They should.
    Also, bridging this to what I blogged yesterday, despite the tens of thousands of civilians who have been killed without us intervening in the Syrian war, I do wonder, after all, if this chemical weapons matter does warrant limited military action. 'Tis said that more lives have been lost (reportedly more than 1,400, including about 400 children) in this use of chemical weapons than any from any chemical weapons attack in 25 years. Does the use of chemical weapons up the ante for death, increase the ability of the attacker to kill a greater number of people? If so, an argument can be made for drawing a "red line," as President Obama called it, against the use of chemical weapons.
   But, then, remains the question of whether the U.S. should police the world.

Is Killing People with Chemical Weapons Worse than Beheading Them?

   I'll borrow from a Facebook poster tonight. Rod Johnson noted that among all the killing of civilians in Syria, some have been beheaded.  So, how is it Syria stepped over the red line just with chemical weapons? Is beheading folks more moral than using chemical weapons?
   I word searched to a link on Wikipedia, and learned between 82,370 and 106,425 civilians have been killed in Syria. (Don't know how that breaks down -- how many by the rebels and how many by the government forces.) So, by going to war only now, are we saying the 82,370 -- 106,425 killings were one thing, even though some were beheadings, but now that you've started using chemicals, that's a different ballgame?

Even Freedom at Times not Enough Reason for War

   Life is to be treasured so much, and peace valued, that at times even freedom is not enough cause for war.

   Yes, I love those words of the Star Spangled Banner, and do not doubt wisdom in them.

        Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

       Between their loved home and the war's desolation!

         Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land

       Praise the Powr that hath made and preserved us a nation.

         Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

       And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

   Yes, I know our forefathers fought for freedom, spilt their blood for it. I do not doubt it. Nor do I doubt the God of Heaven preserved and made us a nation, through that war.

   I honor those who have fought for freedom in our wars since, including wars abroad, fought for not our own, but for the liberty of others.

   Nor have I forgotten the story of Captain Moroni, from my religion's Book of Mormon, and how he raised the Title of Liberty, pledging to fight, "In the memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children."

   Last night, as I prepared for bed, I considered how the cause of freedom is a cause worth warring for. But then I thought of a passage of scripture -- one that is also from my religion -- in which fomenting slaves to rise up against their masters is discouraged. "(W)e do not believe it right . . . to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations, in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men."

   And, I thought of the Anti Nephi Lehis in the Book of Mormon, and how they prostrated themselves upon the ground before an attacking army, dying instead of taking up arms fighting for their freedom.

   Tonight, I thought of the Israelites, and their many years in captivity. When they did escape the Egyptians, it was through the miracle of a sea parting, nor from fighting with the sword.

   Their are times for war. There are times to fight for freedom. But, be that being so, it remains that violence is to be eschewed enough that there are times for a people to be subjected, rather than to war for their freedoms. Perhaps I have not worked out when to fight for freedom and when to, as a people, be subject to dominion, but both are principles I believe in. 

I Hesitate to Jump on the War Bandwagon

   War in Syria? I am not ready for it. I hesitate to jump on the wagon with those who are calling for it. Not to say I do not wonder. I look at the picture below, and wonder if we should not help these people. Can we tolerate the use of chemical weapons?

   But, I question the propriety of any war. Renounce war and proclaim peace, it has been said, and I would like to believe I ascribe to that line of thinking. I also think of Washington's warnings against involving ourselves in such international entanglements.

Syria? War Powers belong to Congress, not to Obama

   War in Syria? I am against President Obama, on his own, taking us into such a chase. It is time we started following the Constitution on the matter of going to war.
  The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War," says Article 1, Section 8.
   In 1973, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution, which says the president is not to lead us into a war without congressional authorization, unless it is an emergency as we are under attack.
   We are not under attack.
    Ever since the War Powers Resolution, presidents have ignored it. Now, since the Constitution grants Congress the right to declare war, Congress certainly had the right to pass the War Powers Resolution.
   If the Constitution says a thing, we should live by it.

Their Guns Would not Defend, but Attack

   Am I a little slow waking up, a little slow on the uptake? Have been posting for a couple days on the prospects of a military coup in the United States, with the thought being that some see the Second Amendment and having weapons as a defense against the government coming against us with weapons to subjugate us to its will.
   Now it occurs to me that some see the need for weapons not as a protection against a federal assault, but rather just the opposite. They would assault the federal government, if they felt their freedoms were eroding enough.
   Not that this possiblity is new to me. The thought that some might rise up militarily against our government has for a year or more been a fear of mine. But, somehow in the last two days as I've blogged on this topic and discussed it elsewhere, it has eluded me.

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/fbi-interrogated-man-after-comment-about-american-police-state-on-facebook/

Military Coups Hardly Common in America

   A military coup? While many fear our loss of freedoms, not so many see it happening in the form of a military coup. Our nation is set up with an elected leader as the commander-in-chief. Perhaps that is part of it. Have we ever, in all of more than 200 years, experienced any military leader rising up, taking control of a military unit, and commanding it to fight against either the government or the people?
   I'm not student enough to know of any small incident. But, if there had been a significant one, we'd all be aware of it.
   The thought of the military rising up against our government, in opposition to it, is not a worry, to most. But, the idea of the military or federal law enforcement being used by our government to subjugate us is perhaps not so foreign. I think of the reports of the government buying up all the ammunition. If any leader or group of leaders brought weapons against us, the people, to tear the government away from the people, that, to me, would be a form of a coup.