> The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate.

It does. Armed forces killing people is a state of war. If not, it's policing then it's under the judiciary authority, not the president.

> What part of the Constitution are we ignoring?

There are a number of amendments that could be pretty reasonable argued to give citizens the right not to get killed by drone strikes.

> What part of the Constitution are we ignoring?

Drone strikes on foreign targets are most analogous to the historical practice of issuing “letters of marque and reprisal,” which allowed private actors (privateers) to act on behalf of the state to take out pirates.

Issuing such letters is an enumerated power of Congress, not the Presidency. So if the President does so unilaterally, they are acting outside their Constitutional authority.

The risks of abuse to military power are real and significant, which is why the power was placed in the body closest to the people - so that such actions would be consistent with the public will.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...

> The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate.

Yes it does, by reserving for Congress the right to declare war. Obama's drone strikes were carried out under the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

The president now has legal authority to do whatever he wants.

At the same time, the president's agencies no longer have the authority to do whatever they want.

So I guess the president can order the military to drone strike the FCC if he wants at this rate. I don't see what influence the Constitution is still going to have at this point.

The Constitution forbade the US even to have a standing army. A standing navy was instituted, however.

Correct.

Not without timely notification of and authorization by Congress.

The constitution clearly says that a declaration of war is needed, and only short periods of action that are necessary in the interim can be taken by the president absent that. Congress does not have the authority to simply pass a law invalidating that. They did it, but it is most certainly not constitutional.

And Congress notably passed the dang thing and has pointedly refused to come back and limit it or curtail the admittedly expansive interpretations subsequent presidents have made of it, so I very much doubt they're going to ding a given president now.

We ask every soldier to put their life on the line. But do we dare ask our President to subject himself to our laws?

I mean, if Obama went to prison for the drone strikes he ordered, his sacrifice would be less than many common soldiers have made.

I want Presidents willing to put their lives on the line and their actions under the law. Is that too much to ask?

> We detached this subthread

What does that mean? I'm not familiar with detached subthreads.