From: "Gary Britt" 

Well in theory I'd call somebody violating a clear constitutional
requirement to be a constitutional crisis because such action threatens the
continued existence of the constitution.  I agree murkiness contributes to
crises also.

While all that you said about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution may be true,
its still a declaration of war (or was there a different AUMF?).

Gary


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43b197d3{at}w3.nls.net...
> I disagree. It's not a constitutional crisis if powers are cleanly
defined.
> It's the ambiguity of 'assumed' powers that cause the crisis.
>
> The Gulf of Tokin Resolution was an abuse of power rushed in for approval
> before the military had even completed their investigation of an incident
> that happened 2 days prior.  Congress fell for it hook line and sinker
>
> Yet another case of faulty intelligence commiting Americans to war
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3810724
>
> In 1964, CBS commentator and TV anchor Walter Cronkite knew only what
> official reports acknowledged. Four decades later, he offers a perspective
> on the incident he didn't have at the time.
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43b18fde$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Yes no branch of government is anxious for a constitutional crisis.
> >
> > I disagree with the implication below that Vietnam wasn't a declared
war.
> > It was.  The Gulf of Tonkin resolution constituted the declaration of
war
> > I
> > believe, as well did all the continuing authorizations for spending in
> > support of the war, in effect.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> > news:43b17fe8$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >>
> >> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
> >> news:43b17c23$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> > Each side (Congress and the President) don't want to
officially lose
> >> > and
> >> > prefer weak kneed murkiness to a clear cut decision.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The Supreme Court is also guilty in contributing to the murkiness.
> >>
> >>
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm
> >> The Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the
> > Constitution's
> >> war powers.  Many interesting legal questions--such as the
> > constitutionality
> >> of the "police action" in Korea or the
"undeclared war" in Viet
Nam--were
> >> never decided by the Court.  (Although the Supreme Court had three
> >> opportunities to decide the constitutionality of the war in Viet Nam,
it
> >> passed on each one.)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5