[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202306.html|Washington Post]

"Almost all the prominent scholars who believe that Congress should play a prominent role in foreign policy look to the 'declare war' clause as the source of Congress's power," Yoo said, 10 minutes into his talk at the Heritage Foundation. "They appeal to a very common-sense reading of the declare-war clause," he continued, and "I think in the popular imagination, declaring war does seem to equate with making war or starting war."

That is, indeed, the prevailing view. But it is not Yoo's. "I don't think if you look at the constitutional text carefully that it carries that expansive reach," he asserted. "Note that the declare-war clause uses the word 'declare.' It doesn't use the word 'begin,' 'make,' 'authorize,' 'wage' or 'commence' war."

Yoo was another one of the legal advisors to the White House, able to find a posistion that can justify anything via some sufficently obtuse reading of the law. Here Yoo claims that the power to begin and wage wars is distinct from the power to declare them and that Congress's power is purely symbolic.

These people are very dangerous because they are legal authors of American Facism, reworking the flow of power to give the President unlimited authority.

Jay