A formal Declaration of War, approved by Congress and signed into law by the President, has only occurred in the United States five times:  The War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War 1, and World War 2.  (There is credible argument that the Declaration of Independence also amounted to a declaration of war, but I don't think that it's been formally recognized as such.)  In twelve other instances, the President sought, and received, congressional approval for extended military engagement, though none of those approvals actually rose to the level of a formal declaration of war.  In either case, the engagement of military forces was sanctioned by Congress before being ordered by the President.

(The conflict commonly known as the American Civil War doesn't count.  Since the Confederate States of America were never granted full diplomatic recognition as a sovereign nation, President Lincoln didn't require congressional approval to put down an armed and organized rebellion.)

However, on at least 125 occasions (including action wholly under U. N. Security Council Resolutions), the President has ordered a non-defensive military engagement without prior express congressional authorization, in clear violation of the U. S. Constitution.

And it's going to get worse.

H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, is nominally, "To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes."  And that seems to be a real no-brainer to pass, that is until you get to get to Title X (General Provisions), Subtitle D (Counterterrorism), and specifically Section 1034 (Affirmation of armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces).  This is where it gets . . . interesting:

Congress affirms that -

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who -
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

But it's paragraphs 3 and 4 that make this so goddamned scary, especially when you combine them with Thursday's four-year renewal of key provisions of the Patriot Act.

See, Section 1034 provides for a grand total of zero restrictions on the President's authority to prosecute the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their "associated forces" . . . and apparently provides him with sole discretion as to what "necessary force" is, who those "nations," "organizations," and "persons" are, what constitutes "substantially supporting" hostilities, who are to be considered "belligerents," and/or when the "hostilities" are considered to be "terminated."

Please tell me that I'm not the only one who sees a problem with this!!!

Never mind the separation of powers, forget about checks and balances, and while we're at it to hell with the Constitution!  In fact, let's just take every constitutionally enumerated power delegated to Congress and just sign it over to the President right now.  And while we're at it, we can also kiss good-bye all of our Bill Of Rights protections as well . . . because if Section 1034 survives in the Senate, that is exactly what door this opens.

• Freedom of religion, speech, press, or assembly?  Not if it would "substantially support" those "associated forces" and "belligerents" considered hostile to the United States.  Ditto for petitioning for redress of grievances.

• I don't think that the right to keep and bear arms will be considered consistent with the continued prosecution of the War on Terror.

• Unreasonable search and seizure?  The security of your person, house, papers, and effects will be violated for any or no reason . . . and they won't need no stinking warrant.

• The protections of due process, double jeopardy, eminent domain, self-incrimination, and grand jury indictment will go out the window.  Likewise for speedy and public jury trial and Miranda Rights protections.

• I expect that excessive bail and/or fines will become routine, and cruel punishments won't become so unusual.

• And what's left of other retained rights and state sovereignty will be shredded as fast as the King of America can make it happen.

I don't think that it's a stretch to say that anyone who belongs to a group already defined by the Department of Homeland Security as posing a potential threat to national security - to include "rightwing extremist" groups - may, upon any acceptable pretext, be detained indefinitely without indictment, trial, or any semblance of due process until such time as the current hostilities are declared over, if indeed they are ever over.  (All it would take is for someone to be doing legitimate business with someone else who is, unbeknownst to him, funneling profits to one of those "associated forces" for the necessary pretext to exist.)

Because once the President is permitted to wage war at his discretion, he is also by extension allowed to keep America in a perpetual state of war, based upon any pretext he so chooses.  And if he can't find enough volunteers to serve in the military, then he can always reinstate the draft, because that would be a necessary and proper part of prosecuting the indefinite conflict.  He can also decide to place the entire national economy on a wartime footing for the duration of the hostilities, which will allow him to indefinitely ignore the debt ceiling.  Perhaps doing away with elections might also be useful.

There would be no end to the constitutional perversions that may be conceived and executed, until such time as the President-King has made beggars and slaves of all but the nation's elites (whomever he might deem them to be), all in the name of, ". . . the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict . . . until the termination of hostilities."

And if by now you're not some combination of outraged and/or scared, then I really don't think that you've been paying attention.

My congressman (and you have no idea how proud I am to say that), Justin Amash, saw Section 1034 as a problem, and introduced Amendment 50 (with support from Lee, Conyers, Jones, Nadler, and Paul) in an effort to strip Section 1034 out of the legislation.  On the day of the vote, Congressman Amash circulated a letter to his colleagues, warning them of the dangers that Section 1034 would create and urging them to support his amendment on the floor.

Yeah, that's right.  Both John Conyers and Ron Paul agreed with Justin Amash that Section 1034 is a bad idea.  Any sensible person ought to know that when those two agree on anything, then it probably deserves a closer look.  Ultimately, when Amendment 50 came up for a vote, it failed (187 yea - 234 nay).  What really ought to bug us is that most of Amash's support for his amendment came from Democrats (166), rather than Republicans (21).

With the exception of Congressman Amash, every single Republican in the Michigan delegation voted "nay" on House Vote # 361,  and every single Democrat in the delegation voted "yea."  I don't agree with MDP on much of anything, but this is one instance where I am truly ashamed to admit that I'm a Michigan Republican.  I honestly never thought that I'd agree with President Obama on much of anything, but he's actually threatening to veto this bill if it lands on his desk as is.  Which, I guess, brings up all manner of "blind squirrel" analogies.

For what my opinion is worth, everyone who voted "nay" on House Vote # 361 - regardless of party affiliation, regardless of home state, regardless of whether they were supported by the tea party in 2010 - every single congressional representative who voted "nay" on H. V. # 361 absolutely ought to be primaried in 2012 . . . period.  Flush all of the bastards for all I care, just to make a point.  That specifically includes Dan Benishek (MI-1), David Camp (MI-4), Bill Huizenga (MI-2), Thad McCotter (MI-11), Candice Miller (MI-10), Mike Rogers (MI-8), Fred Upton (MI-6), and Tim Walberg (MI-7).

I will be speaking with the leadership of the Independence Caucus of Michigan this week.  The reason for that conversation will be to discuss stripping Tim Walberg of his endorsement, preemptively denying it to him for 2012, and issuing a press release to that effect.  I'm pretty sure that I won't have too much argument on that, nor do I expect that the District 7 leadership will have an issue with beginning the effort to recruit a viable primary challenger (who can also take down the Democrat in the general).  We'll also be discussing whom we might be able to recruit as primary challengers to the rest of the traitorous bunch.

The upside of this (if there is any) is that the issue of Section 1034 is not by any means a done deal.  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 has now moved on to the U. S. Senate for review, amendment, and concurrence.  I suspect that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) will be listening to his father's advice on this matter, and will do what he can to strip Section 1034 from the bill.  But we should probably pay attention anyway . . . just in case.