Our founders understood that of all things a govt might do waging war was the most costly and dangerous enterprise it could be authorized to do. They understood that the people would be the ones ot suffer for it no matter how necessary. It would be the people who paid in blood and treasure.
That is why they felt that only the peoples representatives have the power to commit the people to war. When they seperated the powers of govt they gave the peoples representatives and only them the power to declare war. This was not a power to be delegated any more than the power to determine the constitutionality of a law could be delegated by the Supreme Court from the judicial branch to the executive or legislative branch.
My opponent Richard Burr seems to have forgotten this. In the wake of 9/11 rather than go to the trouble as a representative of the people of North Carolina to find out the truth about who was responsible or what to do about it Richard Burr voted to delegate his job to President Bush.
This is what Richard Burr voted for in the 13 Sep 2001 Resolution to authorize the use of force.
>"a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all
>necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
>organizations, or persons HE DETERMINES planned, authorized,
>committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
>September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,
>in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism
>against the United States by such nations, organizations or
Emphasis on the HE DETERMINES is added to emphasize Burrs defection of responsibility. Now in the wake of revelations about the untrustworthyness of the information possessed by the president justifying his reasons for going to war I question why Burr did not feel the need ot abide by the rules the people gave him in their Constitution? Why did he leave it to the president to determine who was responsible for the attack?