Neil Kinnock Quotes

Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Power rests in Parliament, in the House of Commons, and the government - the executive - has to seek the consent of MPs for its legislation.

I cannot think of any circumstances in which a government can go to war without the support of parliament.

As the Executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it do so on the negative side by preventing the competent body [Congress] from deliberating on the question.

The authority to declare war rests in Congress, not in an out-of-control president.

The Constitution's pretty clear. The Federalist papers are pretty clear... They very specifically delegated the power to declare war to Congress. They wanted this to be a congressional decision; they did not want war to be engaged in by the executive without approval of Congress.

I wish the press were paying more attention to the erosion of the Constitution and the slippery slope that we're getting into, by giving up the right of the Congress to talk about when and how and where we go to war.

The House of Commons, refused to receive the addresses of the colonies, when the matter was pending; besides, we hold our rights neither from them nor from the Lords.

The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.

Only we, the public, can force our representatives to reverse their abdication of the war powers that the Constitution gives exclusively to the Congress.

The War Powers Act requires presidents to seek the consent of the American people, through their representatives, before sending our troops into war. It is the responsibility of Congress to deliberate and consult with the executive branch before involving ourselves in a military conflict.

My personal view is always I'm in favour of anything that gives parliament a greater say. That's after all what we were elected for.

The Congress decides when to make war and the President decides how to make war.

We were having problems with the War Powers Act, so I hesitate to use the term war.

In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature.... [War is] the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion … and you allow him to make war at pleasure. … If today he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may see no probability he would say to you, “Be silent!, I see if you don’t.”

An independent House of Commons is as inconsistent to our Constitution as an independent, that is, absolute King.

The Declaration of War function is corrupted if the President is the only source of information about the issue…

Every American war has brought a struggle between Congress and the Executive over war powers. The Constitution is somewhat annoyingly ambiguous on the point declaring that the President is Commander in Chief but empowering Congress to provide for the common defense, declare war, and raise and support armies.

We in America should see that no man is ever given, no matter how gradually or how noble and excellent the man, the power to put this country into a war

I think this sets a very bad precedent, the president unilaterally on his own starting war without any consent from Congress

Since the 1st World War, U. S. Presidents have 18 times asked the Congress for authority to go to war or use military force. The Presidents have never been turned down by Congress.

The King had no independent authority to wage or declare war, to negotiate or ratify treaties. By assigning a substantial share of these responsibilities to a single executive outside the legislature, the architects of the Presidency created an office far more powerful than the British Monarchy at that time.

Any kind of new U.K. federal system would almost certainly demand the creation of a written constitution. Properly drafted, such a document could, among many things, pin down more effectively the proper dimensions of prime ministerial power.

Although England, and the rest of the United Kingdom, possesses momentous constitutional texts and significant statutes, since the 1600s there has been no systematic attempt to codify the powers and limits of the British executive and the rights of those it governs.

I will say, nothing in my time in the Senate has more surprised me than senators and House members want to weigh in on everything under the sun, but they do not want to weigh in on a clearly defined constitutional duty to declare war. It just stuns me.