Ok. Quick facts. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the ability to declare war. Article II appoints the president the commander in chief of the armed forces. Now stop. Take a deep breath. And understand this very clear premise: the United States is not at war. Congress has never authorized a "war" against either Afghanistan or Iraq. Have they passed "resolutions" that enable the president to so use the armed forces? Sure. But they have not declared war. Why am I nitpicking this point? Because I am one of those damn lawyers? Well, don't forget that most politicians and policymakers are too. The end result of this representation is twofold: domestic and international.

Domestically, we traditionally allow the president to assume greater power during war, and this can even include the suspension of certain civil liberties. Okay. But he cannot do this during non-war time. Let me reiterate. There has been no declaration of war. If anything that is attacked under the "rubric" of war allows greater federal powers and less individual freedom, what are we fighting for? And moreover, then what is a "war" in the court of public opinion? Well, the battles raging in Afghanistan and Iraq seem like good examples. For that matter, it seems the government has sold most of the country on a "War on Terrorism." What is that? Where is it fought? There are no boundaries to the answer. What about "War on Drugs" or the "War on Crime?" Both present bad guys. Seem good? Who cares if criminals get their rights stomped? What about the "War on Illegal Parking" or "War on Anti-capitalists?" Where do you draw the line? My point is this, if Americans do not realize what rights they are even giving away, how can they protest them? Oh, and let's not forget the current administration's "War on Dissenters." If you can gain real power by just changing your language, hasn't the government played us all for fools?

Now, internationally, the deal becomes even sweeter. The United Nations and its members (which, yes, includes the United States) have all signed multilateral treaties which create rules of war. Ah, but the United States has never declared war. Oh, and of course there are rules for prisoners of war. Whoops, we're not at war. Instead, we have "enemy combantants" (a term which the president invented to dodge this very issue-and no, I am not making this up, it is absolutely a fact). So no, no prisoners of war, which means no rules for how we treat these persons. It means we don't have to even proove they did anything like we would with someone who only picked your pocket. Three of the persons kept in Cuba have already committed suicide in despair. Europe has found evidence of secret CIA prisons in those countries. Rumors have long circulated about outsourcing interrogations so they can use whatever methods necessary. Is this what we're fighting for?

All said, this is a very real joke that has been played on all Americans, the punchline of which is that you are anti-American if you question any of this, and any judge/court which has the bravery to actually interpret the Constitution as it was written is branded an "activist judges/court." Would a congressperson be an "activist" for passing legislation that someone else didn't like? Would the president be an "activist president" for signing a bill someone didn't like? No. They would both be fulfilling their constitutional duties. as for the judiciary, courts interpret the constitutionality of laws. That is their job. They cannot be faulted for merely holding that a legislative body or the executive office has overstepped its constitutional limits. If doing that is some form of invalid "activism" then we shouldn't even have a court system. And before that sounds too good, let's remember that we might still have segregation if it wasn't for the courts; we might still sanction other forms of discrimination and bias just because a majority approved of it. Legislatures look out for the wishes of the majority, and the courts make sure the minorities' rights are not extinguished in the process. This is called balance of power, something we all learn about in middle school. So how is it that a few inflammatory politicians can make a big deal of it?

Wake up people. Stop just believing what you have been told by people who have done nothing but earn your distrust. How many misrepresentations does it take for the American people to get it? Is it just that some of us don't understand the law? Well I'm telling you. I'm not even telling you my opinion in this post, just the law. I'll leave it to you to decide what to feel about that information.