Question re Constitution, Founders, and declaration (or not) of war

[tbyg52]

I Googled this a little, but I'm not turning up much so far and everything but DU is like molasses on my dialup. I figured there's bound to be people here who already have this info in their heads.... ;)

I emailed my Senators (I know, waste of time) regarding I don't even know what at this point (except that I was angry and/or scared about whatever it was, of course....) and received this as part of the reply from one of them:

"Thank you for writing me regarding a declaration of war by Congress.
I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

Our Constitution empowers only Congress to declare war. However, it
was well understood by the framers of our Constitution that governments can
make war without a formal declaration. Although the Constitution empowers
Congress to "declare war," a declaration of war has been used in only five
military conflicts: the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846, the
Spanish-American War of 1898, World War I, and World War II."

Is the bolded part true, part true, false?

Thank you in advance, Constitutional scholars!

[onenote]

1. The bolded part is far more false than true

Clearly, several of the framers believed that before the nation could go to war, Congress was required to act. As Madison wrote: "The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . . the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

George Washington, while technically not one of the framers of the constitution, wrote that "The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure."

Some constitutional commentators argue, nonetheless, that a distinction should be drawn between declaring war and waging war, particularly where the nation has been attacked. They point to several statements by framers that indicate that it is up to Congress to take the nation from a state of peace to a state of war and argue that when the nation has already been thrust into a state of war by the actions of another country, the Commander in Chief has the constitutional authority to respond. Even so, I'd argue, the constitution vests in congress the power of the purse and therefore even in the constitution allows the nation to engage in military action without a formal declaration of war, it should not do so without Congress first authorizing the spending necessary (not authorizing it after the fact as permitted under the War Powers Resolution).

Finally, one historical footnote. At the end of the 19th Century, the nation became embroiled in what is sometimes referred to as the Quasi-War -- an undeclared military confict fought at sea between the US and France. The fact that this action took place without a declaration of war is sometimes cited as evidence that an undeclared war was not anathema to the founders of the nation.

[tbyg52]

2. Thanks for the info.

So, as I understand you, she's oversimplifying (big surprise), but I can't just hit her with a quote or two and say "boo you are wrong." Darn.... ;)