I'm baffled as to why this idea doesn't take hold. It's so simple:
The President cannot, Constitutionally speaking, declare war.
Weeks ago, I wrote a diary titled, The Most Important and Least Discussed Crime Against the Contstitution, analyzing a bit on Hardball in which Matthews and two guests argue over whether or not Hillary is a Hawk or a Dove. Is she, he wonders, the kind of President who will take us to war with Iran, or withdraw troops from Iraq. Total fucking bullshit... but there's this VoteVet.org guy and some dipshit arguing like crazy over whether or not Hillary is fit to be Commander in Chief... all the while ignoring that the discussion is premised upon an unconstitutional power grab by the Executive branch.
Compared to this, warrantless wiretaps are a minor offense. By co-opting the ability to make war the President becomes de facto emperor, able to create the realities that we are then stuck living in. Yet it is the rare voice in Government that harps on this critical check of Executive power. Obama was against the war, Edwards made a mistake, and Hillary was lied to. Who but Kucinich and Paul get right to the heart of the matter and demand a Constitutionally limited Executive?
Our first defense against an attack of Iran isn't to argue that it's a bad idea for whatever reason. Our first defense is to demand that the Executive branch live within its limits. Congressional Democrats should make clear that any preemptive military strike would lead instantly to impeachment proceedings.
Unfortunately, we've lived so long with the idea that the President can wage undeclared war that the simple Constitutional fact sounds strange. We've become so accustomed to the crime that we hardly even recognize it as criminal. Executive warfare is not just a High Crime against the letter of the law, but an offense to the spirit of both Republican and Democratic government.
It's long past time that this fact was clearly understood.