You confuse "constitutional authority" with "legal authority". A constitutional authority is that written in the Constitution. A legal authority is that written in a law. All laws are subordinate to the Constitution.<quoted text> In peacetime; not under conditions of war.[Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording:
[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; ][THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
....] www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm̴... ;
The laws you reference do not give any constitutional authority to the president. Only the Constitution gives constitutional authority to the president. And all laws are subordinate to the Constitution. When in conflict, the Constitution is always right.
Anyone who knows how the government works would know that.
So, now, the Democrat party line is Congress declared war.
Ok, let's just ignore that your biggest complaint used to be Congress never declared a war.
Do you even know what "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" are?
And, if you noticed, it says "Congress has the authority...." I'm assuming you know the difference between Congress and the President.
Let's state something that should be obvious. The framers of the Constitution were well aware of organized terrorism within the borders of the country, having experienced it. They wrote the Constitution with that experience being a significant influence. With that in mind, in the Bill of Rights, they specifically cite when conditions of war supercede the individual right.
Let's read the 5th Amendment again:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The 5th Amendment applies universally in all conditions for everyone within the boundary of authority of the Constitution except where the 5th Amendment says it doesn't apply:
"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"
What this means is, first, the exception applies ONLY WITHIN THE MILITARY OR MILITIA, and second, ONLY DURING A WAR or public danger.
It's important to understand this point very, very clearly.
THE EXCEPTION REFERENCED IN THE 5TH AMENDMENT NEVER APPLIES TO ANYONE NOT IN ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE.
Anyone who can read and understand the written English language will know this after reading it.
And, legislation is subordinate to the Constitution. If any legislation conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution is right.
Your explanation conflicts with the Constitution.
So, which is right, what you wrote or the Constitution?