Wordcraft Community Home Page  
  Forums  
  Questions & Answers about Words  
  Letters of MarqueGo  ![]()  | New  ![]()  | Find  ![]()  | Notify  ![]()  | Tools  ![]()  | Reply  ![]()  |    | 
| Member | 
 Geoff here, on my spouse's computer: Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution discussed the above as among the US government's powers. Does the term still have validity today? As I understand it from the historical perspective, it meant legalized piracy.  | ||
  | 
| <Proofreader> | 
 
 Today it's called a "bailout."  | ||
  | 
| Member | 
 Hi Geoff, alias Sunflower! Interesting...I've not heard of it before. According to Wikipedia, it's It almost seems like it's an excuse for piracy.  | |||
  | 
| Member | 
 In essence, it was legalised piracy. Several holders took things to far and crossed over into out-and-out piracy.  According to that Wikipedia page their issuance was ended by signatories to the 1856 Declaration of Paris. However, the USA was not a signatory to that declaration, so could in theory still issue letters of marque. Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.  | |||
  | 
| Member | 
 I'm wondering whether this provision of our Constitution is what's given Presidents the "legitimate" excuse for perpetrating wars unofficially.  The USA has had a long history of foreign interventions sans decleration of war.  The infamous Blackwater privateers are only the latest in a long line.  The term seems anachronistic, yet is still current, though not used. Geoff - not Sunflower  | |||
  | 

