Several Congressmen have or are getting ready to file a lawsuit against the 1600 Crew, alleging that there was actually no authorization for a war in Iraq. Given the right's love of the the strict constructionism idea and their formation of that weird club, The Federalist Society (Skull and Bones Lite, perhaps?), you would think that this might be more meaningful in their debates. But then the Federalist Papers were just written by a bunch of dead guys with radical ideas, right?

As we head off into the fog of a conflict that seems to be driven by a group of men who for their own reasons are willing to set the globe on fire for motives as yet unexplained to many, many people on this small planet, it's worth it to look at the following words from Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers

Federalist 24 - Hamilton It has indeed been brought forward in the most vague and general form, supported only by bold assertions, without the appearance of argument; without even the sanction of theoretical opinions; in contradiction to the practice of other free nations, and to the general sense of America, as expressed in most of the existing constitutions. The proprietory of this remark will appear, the moment it is recollected that the objection under consideration turns upon a supposed necessity of restraining the LEGISLATIVE authority of the nation, in the article of military establishments; a principle unheard of, except in one or two of our State constitutions, and rejected in all the rest.

A stranger to our politics, who was to read our newspapers at the present juncture, without having previously inspected the plan reported by the convention, would be naturally led to one of two conclusions: either that it contained a positive injunction, that standing armies should be kept up in time of peace; or that it vested in the EXECUTIVE the whole power of levying troops, without subjecting his discretion, in any shape, to the control of the legislature.

If he came afterwards to peruse the plan itself, he would be surprised to discover, that neither the one nor the other was the case; that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that instead of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity.
...
Federalist 69 - Hamilton
It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

It's amazing what they were thnking of back then. What do you suppose Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and the rest would think of the current adminstration?

I think they'd wonder who let BushRoveCo. into the government.