2) do you think that normal requirements of the constitution to declare war (a declaration of war from…

2) do you think that normal requirements of the constitution to declare war (a declaration of war from congress) should still be required in an emergency like 9/11? why or why not? what are the consequences of ignoring the constitution in an emergency? what are the consequences of not being able to act right away?

2) do you think that normal requirements of the constitution to declare war (a declaration of war from congress) should still be required in an emergency like 9/11? why or why not? what are the consequences of ignoring the constitution in an emergency? what are the consequences of not being able to act right away?

Answer

Brief Explanations:

The Constitution's war - declaration process is a safeguard of checks and balances. In an emergency like 9/11, if ignored, it could set a dangerous precedent of executive over - reach. Delaying action might mean more harm in the short - term, but following the Constitution maintains long - term democratic integrity. Ignoring it could lead to loss of civil liberties and undermine the rule of law. Not acting right away might allow threats to escalate, but it also gives time for a more measured and legitimate response.

Answer:

Whether the normal Constitution requirements for declaring war should be followed in an emergency like 9/11 is a complex issue. On one hand, adhering to the Constitution maintains the rule of law and democratic principles. Ignoring it in an emergency could lead to executive over - power and potential erosion of civil liberties. On the other hand, not acting right away due to the need for a Congressional declaration might allow threats to grow. However, the long - term consequences of ignoring the Constitution are likely more detrimental to the democratic system. So, while there are short - term drawbacks to following the process, it is crucial for the long - term health of the nation.