Defensive war - especially pertaining to the Middle East. Cases and criteria?

I suppose just like with 'salad rocket' and 'sky rocket" - a Rocket is a Rocket?
Or, even better, 'rain shower' and 'bathroom shower' - a Shower is a Shower?
Or maybe 'strawberry jam' and 'traffic jam' - Jam is Jam?
Or even a 'federated state' and a 'sovereign state' - a State is a State?

OK, I get your direction.

 

Yes, a State is a State for purposes of the laws of nation-States. I am glad you got the direction.

 

And for purposes of the laws of the US Constitution, the topic here, a "State" is exclusively one of these United States.

 

It still applies to "defensive war".

 

Actually, it applies to ANY war whatsoever engaged in by one of the United States. Defensive or offensive. And DOES NOT apply to ANY war whatsoever waged by middle eastern countries. Are ya stuck on stupid?

 

Are you claiming our federal Congress exceeded its authority in declaring a common Offense or the general Warfare, instead of the common Defense?

 

Nope. Stick with your original BS instead of grasping for other BS.

 

It was your implication when you claim: "And DOES NOT apply to ANY war whatsoever waged by middle eastern countries."

 

Those terms don't exist in your laws as you yourself have admitted to.
It's not up to your congress to determine how a war is fought.

A declaration of war is just that and it doesn't specify how it should be fought as it is up to armed forces to make that judgement.
Your contention is null and void.

 

There are Only the social powers to pay the debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

When was an actual State of War declared against a lawful nation-state; and, when are they going to surrender to our exorbitantly expensive, superpower?

 

Which hasn't been violated

Just look it up the US has declared war multiple times.

Surrender isn't the prerequisite for the cessation of hostilities

 

You seem to be missing the difference between theory and practice; like usual. We have a supreme law of the land.

When was an actual State of War declared against a lawful nation-state; and, how does that construe any latitude of construction toward a War on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, or Terror?

No definite goals, objectives, or timetables; i got it.

 

No I'm not and don't insult me as usual.

It really isn't difficult to look up. If you want a famous example then I cite the declaration of war against Germany.

First time you've mentioned that. These 'wars' are metaphors and not actual declarations nor states of war.
I challenge you to find such a declaration of war pertaining to those 'wars' as you put it.

I didn't say that.

 

In other words, we already have a historical precedent and example to compare and contrast, in modern times.

Citing a chief magistrate of our republic should be enough.

You may not have said it, but you don't have any real goals, objectives, or timetables for any "war" on any abstraction.

 

You asked for an example of a declaration of war and I gave one.

Which doesn't support your claim. In fact it actually supports mine and you haven't cited a chief magistrate but rather wikipedia.

Yes I do and I'm working on the legal criteria for war not your personal definition.
As I said before don't insult me by making unfounded presumptions about myself.

 

Thank you for that cogent and express example for our elected representatives in modern times.

Are you claiming this is not part of our historical record?

Here is another source so you won't have to resort to diversion anymore:

In other words, you also reached a conclusion that wars on abstractions are not real "wars" according to traditional, legal, definition. By extension, do you also agree that our federal Congress may have overreached in its authority under the United States, to pay the debts, and provide for the general welfare and common defense of the United States.

 

That doesn't even make sense.

No.

I wasn't "resorting to diversion"
War isn't mentioned once in that first passage.
And the second article is an article and not a legal document which expresses a declaration of war against drugs or any other sort that you've listed.

Which is correct and its not my conclusion but that of the law.

No.

 

An analgoy to war instead of Commerce with our Commerce Clause is what was declared by a Person in that office of public Trust, under the authority of the United States.

If, our wars on abstactions are not real wars, then why do you believe such powers are not an overreach by our federal Congress regarding, paying the debts, and providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

No one claimed they did. Got anything relevant to the topic of discussion? Or just more on this imaginary discussion going on entirely within your own mind.

 

All irrelevant to the questions at hand.

Our war on drugs has no relevance.

 

Then you've just agreed with me.

Because that's what they're doing.

 

Then you are off-topic.
Go check the OP for confirmation.

 

I thought it was about the "theory" of defensive war in the Middle East; I am using analogies from our own supreme law of the land.

 

Please check the OP. This is the Middle East forum, not that of Political Beliefs.

 

I thought it was about the "theory" of defensive war in the Middle East.