Let's stick with the facts in lieu of allowing an issue of critical importance to the Liberty Movement, Tea Party degrading into a series of back and forth ad hominem attacks. Fortunately we have the actual words of the Founding Generation to illuminate the truth. On the first day of the VA Ratification debates, 4 June, 1788 George Nicholas -Federalist - lay out the foundation that he, James Madison and Governor Edmund Randolph would use to assure the delegates that only very limited, enumerated, powers were granted under the new Constitution and they were vested in a Legislature. In this excerpt Nicholas goes so far as to claim the new President has only "feeble" powers yet in the 18th century to power to declare wars was an omnipotent one.
 | "....yet the people in England have ever prevailed when they persisted in any particular purpose. If, then, they have prevailed there when opposed by two other powerful branches of the legislature, and when elected so unduly, what may we not expect from our House of Representatives, fairly chosen by the people? If the people there prevail with septennial elections, what may we not expect from our representatives, chosen only for two years, and who only have to encounter the feeble power of the President, and a Senate whose interest will lead them to do their duty? The opposers of this plan of government dread the exercise of the most necessary, the most indispensable powers, and exercised by their own representatives. Magna Charta, and Declaration of Rights, only say that such powers shall not be exercised but with consent of Parliament; and experience has proved that the making their consent necessary has sufficiently secured a proper exercise of those powers. The best writers also agree that such powers may always be lodged with representatives. We have all the security which a people sensible and jealous of their liberties can wish for." - George Nicholas Virginia Ratification Debate June 4, 1788 |
Fast forward ten days and on Friday 6, June 1788 James Madison arose in the Ratification Convention and addressed the issue of raising and supporting armies note Madison's consistent referral to the Legislature as having this power.
"The power of raising and supporting armies is exclaimed against as dangerous and unnecessary. I wish there were no necessity of vesting this power in the general government. Butsuppose a foreign nation to declare war against the United States; must not the general legislature have the power of defending the United States? Ought it to be known to foreign nations that the general government of the United States of America has no power to raise and support an army, even in the utmost danger, when attacked by external enemies? Would not their knowledge of such a circumstance stimulate them to fall upon us? If, sir, Congress be not invested with this power, any powerful nation, prompted by ambition or avarice, will be invited, by our weakness, to attack us; and such an attack, by disciplined veterans, would certainly be attended with success, when only opposed by irregular undisciplined militia." - James Madison Virginia Ratification Debate June 6, 1788 |  |
On 9, June 1788 Patrick Henry then arose in the Convention to lob this objection to the Constitution that not only was the power to Declare War vested in the Congress they were also given the power to raise revenue for the endeavor. This was shocking and dangerous to Henry who argues that their must be a check on this power. Note the absence of the role of the "Commander in Chief".
 | "A republic can never enter into a war, unless it be a national war — unless it be approved of, or desired, by the whole community. Did ever a republic fail to use the utmost resources of the community when war was necessary? I call for an example. I call also for an example where a republic has been engaged in a war contrary to the wishes of its people. There are thousands of examples where the ambition of its prince has precipitated a nation into the most destructive war. No nation ever withheld power when its object was just and right. I will hazard an observation: I find fault with the paper before you, because the same power that declares war has the power to carry it on. Is it so in England? The king declares war; the House of Commons gives the means of carrying it on. This is a strong check on the king. He will enter into no war that is unnecessary; for the commons, having the power of withholding the means, will exercise that power, unless the object of the war be for the interest of the nation. How is it here? The Congress can both declare war and carry it on, and levy your money, as long as you have a shilling to pay." - Patrick Henry Virginia Ratification Debate June 9, 1788 |
On the 24th of June, Republican John Dawson arose in opposition to the Constiuttion because it did NOT grant to the President the power of declaring war....
"Congress, sir, have the power to declare war, and also to raise and support armies; and if we suppose them to be a representation of the states, the nexus imperii of the British constitution is here lost. There the king has the power of declaring war, and the Parliament that of raising money to support it. Governments ought not to depend on an army for their support, but ought to be so formed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the citizens. Some degree of virtue, sir, must exist, or freedom cannot live." -John Dawson Virginia Ratification Debate June 24, 1788 |  |
On 18 June, 1788 in the same Convention George Mason - the man Thomas Jefferson called "the wisest man of his generation"- to cast doubt on the powers of the Commander-in-chief's powers. Note that as an opponent of ratification Mason does not read declaratory powers into the Commander-in-Chief but fears what happens when CONGRESS grants those powers after the act.
 | Mr. GEORGE MASON, animadverting on the magnitude of the powers of the President, was alarmed at the additional power of commanding the army in person. He admitted the propriety of his being commander-in-chief, so far as to give orders and have a general superintendency; but he thought it would be dangerous to let him command in person, without any restraint, as he might make a bad use of it. He was, then, clearly of opinion that the consent of a majority of both houses of Congress should be required before he could take the command in person. If at any time it should be necessary that he should take the personal command, either on account of his superior abilities or other cause, then Congress would agree to it; and all dangers would be obviated by requiring their consent. He called to gentlemen’s recollection the extent of what the late commander-in-chief might have done, from his great abilities, and the strong attachment of both officers and soldiers towards him, if, instead of being disinterested, he had been an ambitious man. So disinterested and amiable a character as General Washington might never command again. The possibility of danger ought to be guarded against. |
Even during the Federal Convention of 1787, on Friday, 17 August the delegates discussed the wording of enumerated powers including whether Congress should "make" or "declare" war. Note that the Convention was unanimous against giving the Congress power to "and [make] peace" as it was thought that once declared, the waging of WAR should fall to the Commander-in-Chief.
“To make war” Mr Pinkney opposed the vesting this power in the Legislature.8 Its proceedings were too slow. It wd. meet but once a year. The Hs. of Reps. would be too numerous for such deliberations. The Senate would be the best depositary, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions. If the States are equally represented in Senate, so as to give no advantage to large States, the power will notwithstanding be safe, as the small have their all at stake in such cases as well as the large States. It would be singular for one- authority to make war, and another peace. Mr Butler. The Objections agst the Legislature lie in a great degree agst the Senate. He was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it. Mr. M〈adison〉 and Mr Gerry moved to insert “declare,” striking out “make” war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks. Mr Sharman thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war. “Make” better than “declare” the latter narrowing the power too much. Mr Gerry never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war. Mr. Elseworth. there is a material difference between the cases of making war, and making peace. It shd. be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration. peace attended with intricate & secret negociations. Mr. Mason was agst giving the power of war to the Executive, because not 〈safely〉 to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred “declare” to “make”. On the Motion to insert declare — in place of Make, 〈it was agreed to.〉 N. H. no. Mas. abst. Cont. no.* Pa ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo- ay. [Ayes — 7; noes —2; absent — 1.] Mr. Pinkney’s motion to strike out whole clause, disagd. to without call of States. Mr Butler moved to give the Legislature power of peace, as they were to have that of war. Mr Gerry 2ds. him. 8 Senators may possibly exercise the power if vested in that body, and 14 if all should be present; and may consequently give up part of the U. States. The Senate are more liable to be corrupted by an Enemy than the whole Legislature. On the motion for adding “and peace” after “war” N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. 〈no〉9 S. C no. Geo. no. [Ayes — o; noes — 10.] James McHenry, who also took notes that day, noted what must have been a contentious debate over the difference between "make [war] and "declare war" proving yet again the silliness of arguing that the Framers were not good stewards of the powers they were conferring and took every sentence and punctuation mark seriously. "Debated the difference between a power to declare war, and to make war — amended by substituting declare — adjourned without a question on the clause." |  |
