In proving this point, not only will it be shown that Presidents violated the constitution by carrying out unauthorized acts of War through unilateral decisions, but that other acts by other branches of government also violated and repeatedly violate the law. In essence these people who carry out these actions out are no better than common criminals who repeatedly and willfully break the law. Until the citizens of the United States understand those fundamental principals that are laid out in the constitution, the powers that be will continue to misuse their office. .
Shouldn't the oldest constitution be the most fluid? Shouldn't the government whose constitution has survived Civil War, World Wars, and Terrorist attacks be the most ardent to their supreme law? Isn't it logical that if the law isn't followed then surely anarchy will remain supreme? Obviously not, or things wouldn't be the way they are. So the question arises "how are things?" Things seem out of order. The government isn't confined by the rule of law. It is confined by how much each individual can get away with before someone stands up and puts them behind bars. .
"Constitutionally, Congress was empowered to declare and authorize war. Yet, thanks largely to a docile Congress and negligent judiciary; presidents have virtually confiscated the power to make war. That process has hardly been curbed by the War Powers Resolution (1973) and more recent signs of congressional backbone. As a result, Presidents Bush (in the Persian Gulf) and Clinton (in Haiti and Bosnia) have tried to sidestep congressional approval by asserting United Nations authority for military actions beyond our borders. Fisher is emphatic: Such actions violate the letter and the spirit of the Constitution." (Fisher 200).
Now isn't that something. Congress declares war. Not Congress can declare war. Not Congress can declare war if the President thinks it's OK. Congress, by letter of the law, is empowered to declare war.
