On War

andystone

is a stupid, self-defeating, and Ron Paulesque argument. There are much more solid grounds to object to Obama’s actions. Foremost, there’s the apparent alliance with proven Al Qaeda affiliate LIFG:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Islamic_Fighting_Group

Second, the military action was undertaken in a haphazard and unplanned manner, damaging our international image (by which I don’t mean Sarkozy’s opinion of Obama, but the general respect with which US diplomacy and the US military are seen in the world).

smitch61

covers it.

http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

The Republican House must demand the enforcement of the War Powers Act or repeal it. Just like Mr. Obama should not be allowed to pick and choose which laws to enforce, Congress must honor its own laws. If the Republicans and conservatives disagree with the War Powers Act, then they should repeal it. Would Mr. Obama veto a law that requires him to request authorization for the Libya operation from Congress – which he may be loath to do? Would the Democratic controlled Senate argue in support of the War Powers Act and thus threaten to reign in the Obama administration?

The Democrats must be forced to live by their own rules. The War Powers Act and Libya presents us with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate Democrat hypocrisy and to settle the war powers question once and for all.

spainishirish

The vast majority of us who see this intervention to install al-Qaeda in power as suicidal. We don’t seek it as unconstitutional.

So the issue here is wisdom. President Bush, no matter what one thinks of Iraq and Afghanistan, was wise to put Congress in a box and have it vote to authorize force. He wasn’t required to do so. Obama, whom we at one point were told was the smartest guy in the room, did not have enough sense to realize the importance of congressional authorization was political, not legal.

e_rowe

That article is supposed to settle this issue? The article at the link where Levin flatly refuses to accept Wood’s challenge to find any support for his view of the Constitution among the federalists? Levin comes about as close to conceding defeat as anyone with his level of arrogance and inability to form the sentence, “I was wrong.” can do.

I’ve been following this debate between Levin and Woods. And Levin’s entire argument throughout it has been based on historical precedent. But the debate isn’t a debate about what presidents have done in history, it’s about what the Constitution says and means. Levin has not adduced a scrap of evidence that the Constitution grants the president the power to start a war without congressional approval, and Woods has clearly demonstrated that the Constitution affords the president no such power.

E.g.
http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-phony-case-for-presidential-war-powers/
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/mark-levin-wrong-on-war-powers/
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/my-challenge-to-mark-levin-put-up-or-shut-up/

And what’s with Levin’s calling Woods “the outlier professor”? He might be an outlier on some issues, but on this one he’s well within the mainstream of strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.

Douglas Erley

But I still state unhesitatingly, that for pure, vacillating stupidity, for superb incompetence to command, for ignorance combined with bad judgement – in short for the true talent for catastrophe, Elphy Bey stood alone. Others abide our question, but Elphy outshines them all as the greatest military idiot of our own or any other day…”.
Or this: “Only he could have permitted the First Afghan War and let it develop to such a ruinous defeat. It was not easy: he started with a good army, a secure position, some excellent officers, a disorganised enemy, and repeated opportunities to save the situation. But Elphy, with a touch of true genius, swept aside these obstacles with unerring precision, and out of order wrought complete chaos. We shall not, with luck, look upon his like again.”

skorrent1

When is a war a war? Quite obviously when Congress has declared it so. We have a “War on Drugs”, which allows the President to use military assets at his discretion to interdict the flow of drugs. Is that what is meant?

If it is suggested that the CinC is not empowered to deploy or employ any military assets without specific direction by a formal act of Congress, then the suggestion is, of course, preposterous. The military (USMC) is deployed throughout the world to protect and defend US territory (embassies), and their response to a percieved threat is under the direction of the President. The military may be employed by the President to protect and/or evacuate US citizens under the direction of the President and under his rules of engagement. Quite extensive military operations may be ordered by the President in response to disasters or emergencies around the world which may, or may not, involve the use of force. Obviously, if the Congress funds, and does not specifically prohibit, covert actions involving military assets, then a formal Congressional authorization of each action would be self-defeating.

The Constitutional power of Congress to “declare war” can be effective in directing the President, as CinC, to undertake certain military objectives, but it is not effective in limiting his actions in situations not addressed. Congress has provided the CinC with a large standing military, in spite of the reservations of our founders. They should not be surprised at his willingness to use it at his own discretion rather than theirs.

http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

Partial Birth Abortion used to be legal as well. Good and legal, like wise and evil, are not necessarily synonymous.

Marcus_Traianus

Especially this part;

Consulting Congress? Now, notice how the outlier professor changes the subject. I’ve been at this now for the better part of a week. I’ve explained my position on radio, on Fox, and on this site. I think it is extremely wise for a president to consult with Congress (well, not all 535 members but members in leadership positions) before launching non-defensive military actions for both policy and political reasons. In fact, most presidents claim to have done so in one form or another respecting most military operations. I cannot imagine any Federalist would have argued against a president consulting with Congress. Why would they? But that was not the issue. Consulting Congress is a far cry from arguing that a president is required, as a constitutional requisite to military operations, to secure a declaration of war.

Emphasis mine.

Warrior

in the public mind is so vague now, after the Dems and libs spent the decade we were in Vietnam clouding it, that saying anyone is declaring “war” is virtually meaningless.

Grenada, Panama, Kososvo, Croatia, Gulf I and II, Afghanistan — I guess some were “declared” and some were not, but as Levine states, declaring war was more or less a formality until the Jane Fonda crowd used it as a casuistical shibboleth with which to bash the anti-commie right in the 60′s and early 70′s. And when the Dem Congress of ’75 did cut funding to the south it resulted in a blood bath of major proportions for the indigenous population. Our former allies, BTW.

Frankly, I am happy to see the Kenyon display some moxie. Of course, he could start a “police action,” a “low intensity conflict,” or a “no-fly zone” everyday and I wouldn’t vote for him. The real danger with his using military action for poitical posturing is that when we really need our traditional allies, e.g. Britain, Poland, etc., they will be too disgusted with us to help.

Furthermore, as a poster on Levine’s site noted, the big “O” has far more ostensible justification for sending troops to our southern border. Thousands of deaths have and are occurring down there under the kindly leadership of Felipe Calderon. In the totality of things, however, we really don’t wish to see the pock-faced Quadaffi set all his oil wells alight.

We need a stable Middle East for many reasons. To prevent the Russians or Chinese from using Middle Eastern oil to fight an endless war of attrition against us or our allies is just one of them. But don’t hold your breath waiting for Harry or Nancy to denounce the big “O” for trading “blood for oil.” At least not until the next presidential campaign cycle begins.

e_rowe

That was deliberate on the part of the framers. The Federalist Papers (of which you and Levin both seem to be either ignorant or disinterested) are repeatedly clear on that point. And it is precisely for this reason that Article 1 section 8 reserves the power to declare war for Congress,

It is not preposterous to suggest that the president only has the authority to spend the funds Congress allocates for him to spend in the ways Congress dictates they are to be spent. This is true of the military just as much as it is everything else. When the Congress appropriates military assets to be used for defense, these are not a blank check for the president to employ for nondefensive purposes. If they were such a blank check, then the president could start any war he wanted at any time he wanted for any reason he wanted, and Congress could do nothing about it save for defunding the military in its entirety. As the plain wording of the Constitution shows, and as the Federalist Papers repeatedly confirm, the Constitution was originally understood by those who ratified to preclude precisely that kind of kingly overreach by the president.

I’m not sure what you have in mind when you say, “Obviously, if the Congress funds, and does not specifically prohibit, covert actions involving military assets, then a formal Congressional authorization of each action would be self-defeating.” Congress has explicitly prohibited certain uses of military assets. That’s precisely what the War Powers Act does. The very point at issue is whether or not the president has the authority to use those assets contrary to Congress’s explicit authorization simply because he’s the commander in chief and still be upholding his oath of office. The correct answer is, no, he cannot.

e_rowe

And he’s wrong. Consulting Congress is precisely the issue. He’s trying to avoid that point, because he knows he has no evidence to support his view.

caboose

a declared war since WWll. The US Government doe not recognize the Korean, Vietnam, or any engagement in conflict since WWll as wars. Federal Civil Service refuses certain benefits for military retirees and other veterans, who served in the previous conflicts, because “they are not declared wars.” So by not declaring war, the government screws the veterans.

http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

I find this as shameful as it is true.

Menlo

It seems the only thing people are quibbling over is “wisdom” or “goals.” The legality is likewise irrelevant. Why won’t ANYONE step up and AT LEAST call this action unambiguously unjustified and unethical to the extreme? It is evil and can in no way be well-intended.

e_rowe

After Levin wrote that, Woods suggested that anyone who wants to see which one is addressing the issue being debated and which one is avoiding it should read through all of what they’ve both written.

That’s a good idea. You can do that here:
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/

I’m actually a bit surprised that Erick even linked that post from Levin. Anyone who actually agrees with him on this should be embarrassed at how incapable he has proven to be at defending his position.

Ausonius

I do not have access to all my History books right now, but none of them has anything about Congress being specifically consulted by Washington, before he raised and sent a militia into western Pennsylvania during the Whiskey Rebellion.

Wikipedia supports what my books have: that the Militia Act of 1792 gave the Commander-in-Chief authority to protect the United States from invasion, threat of invasion, or to enforce laws in any state where they are being disobeyed. Washington consulted the members of the Executive Branch for opinions on sending in troops.

In a sense, Congress had already authorized the use of troops by the Executive for such purposes. Specific permission – at least from what I can research right now – was not necessary in that case. For the two Barbary Pirate Wars, Congress authorized “naval action” but did not formally authorize war, although the Moslem leaders of the states did formally declare a war on the U.S. for lack of of payment of tribute.

You can debate whether Kha-Daffy merits military action with or without Congressional consent, i.e. “Vital interest” vs. “in an area of vital interest” and regards to our “intrepid” Secretary of Defense!

http://applescorneroftheorchard.blogspot.com/ Pomme

nt

e_rowe

So does Tom McClintock, in a letter published here on Red State:
http://www.redstate.com/representativetommcclintock/2011/03/23/letter-to-president-obama-regarding-libya/

So do a variety of mainstream conservative columnists:
Ben Stein – http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/22/one-world-government-obama
George Will – http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/regime-change-in-libya-isnt-americas-duty/2011/03/21/ABhDlj7_story.html
Cal Thomas – http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas032211.php3
Andrew McCarthy – http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262547/unwise-and-illegitimate-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1
Peggy Noonan – http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Of course, none of this proves their position is correct (the evidence Woods and others have adduced accomplishes that). But it does undercut attempts by Levin to avoid the debate by merely pointing and laughing at his disputants and declaring them outliers.

Marcus_Traianus

there is nothing in the Constitution which limits the President as executive and Commander in Chief from taking action against what he perceives are imminent threats. As Mr. Levin also notes, the framers never enumerated any limitations on those powers, nor is there any historical precedent for such action.

Congress was the enumerated power of the purse. If they disagree with President’s decision they can simply defund the action- and he cites an example which you also apparently missed.

Consulting the Congress is wise and advisable. But that is not the argument. It is whether such action is required under the Constitution. It is not and that is the prevailing view on the subject. Hence why he calls Woods and “outlier”- because he is. There is no evidence which directly refutes his argument without changing the subject. You have also not provided any either.

e_rowe

But you correctly point out that in both of those cases, the president was using assets in accord with how Congress had already authorized their use.

Of course, these examples, again, are still only historical examples, and do not indicate anything about whether or not those uses of the military were constitutional. But even if we were to take the actions of Washington and Jefferson as exemplary of constitutionality, these examples still do not provide support for what Woods has challenged Levin to show, which is that it is constitutional for the president to wage nondefensive war without the authorization of Congress. In both those cases, the actions were defensive and retaliatory, and in both they were authorized by Congress.

e_rowe

Woods has challenged him to produce any evidence at all that the Constitution as originally understood when it was ratified that the president is authorized to wage offensive operations without consulting Congress. Woods has provided plenty of evidence to the contrary, and Levin seems content to provide no evidence for that position at all, as anyone who bothers to read through the debate can see.

Yes, of course Congress could defund the operation after it has started. But that’s not the end of their power. They can also never fund it in the first place (such as is the case with Lybia), so that the president has no authority to get into such a situation that Congress could only ever authorize or defund after the damage is already done.

Now with Levin’s claim that Woods is changing the issue, all I can think is that Levin tacitly admits that Woods is right, that the Constitution does not grant the president the authority to engage in offensive operations without consulting Congress. If Levin does concede that point, then I don’t see much else to debate. If he does not, then the ball’s still in his court.

Ausonius

Consider the following: the year is 1958, and Russian bombers and missiles are coming over the North Pole.

Does Eisenhower call Congress together in the middle of the night to find out if he should push “The Button” to vaporize the Soviet Union?

He does not, and quite rightly not. As Commander-in-Chief he already has the authorization from the Constitution and assorted acts of Congress.

What can be debated is whether Congress agrees with the Commander-in-Chief’s decision ex post facto: if they do not, they can defund the action. Even the 1973 War Powers does not specifically forbid the president from starting any military action: he needs to explain to Congress why the action is occurring within 2 days.

Marcus_Traianus

What is it you don’t understand? Levin staked out a position with a well-founded argument and evidence to back his assertion. There is no Constitutional evidence, precedent or law requiring the President as CinC to consult Congress prior to taking military action. None. Zero. Zilch. If you have it, produce it, cite it, sing it in a song.

Woods changes the subject and purports to challenge him with an assertion having nothing to do with the original statement. It is Woods and you, as his defender apparently. to produce it.

Either produce the evidence or go back to being an avid Ron Paul supporter. There is little tolerance around here for this type of wasteful, baseless nonsense.

e_rowe

Just click the first link to Woods that I gave you and read through some of the evidence. And then click another one after that if it isn’t enough. I’m not going to reproduce quote after quote in a comment when it’s all there for you to read. Levin hasn’t presented any at all. And when challenged to do so he threw in the towel. Anyone who bothers to read through their debate can see that. If you don’t trust readers to come to their own conclusions when the evidence is put before them like that, demanding that they have to agree with you lest they be called Ron Paul supporters isn’t going to convince them..

evilredscandi

The problem is that many Republicans (especially the Neocons like Mark Levin) see the power that’s accumulated in Washington as a prize to be fought over, won, used, and expanded – and then cry like babies when people get annoyed at their abuses and give power to the “evil” party. The Democrats are the exact same way, without the pretense of believing in smaller government.

Levin would rather see Obama abuse Presidential authority, add to the debt, and probably send our troops into harm’s way – just so that his team can have the power when it’s “their turn.” In order to what? Hand Libya to Al Queda? It’s not a guaranteed outcome but it’s far from impossible. The thing is, we don’t know who, what, or why we’re there.

Put it this way – each Tomahawk fired at Libya costs an average of $1,400,000. The average small business startup costs are $10,000. So each time one of those gets fired off, Obama burns through enough money to start 140 new businesses. Supposedly around 100 were fired the first day, so that’s 14,000 businesses and the associated jobs. The only thing worse than pulling that money out of the economy is… borrowing that money in the first place.

Obama is breaking windows on a level that Bastiat never dreamed possible, and here are the so-called “conservatives” cheering him on. Read some history – I think you’ll find your philosophies have much more in common with FDR than they do with Reagan. Note that when Reagan bombed Libya, it was in response to an actual attack on American troops through a suicide bombing (nobody – even Woods – is arguing that the President needs authority to respond to direct attacks), he had a very specific idea of what he was doing, and he was in and out in a few hours. What Levin wants is an imperial Presidency that can attack anyone under any pretext (again, what the heck are we doing in Libya?!??), knowing full well that Congress lacks the guts to pull the plug on a WPA action. De-fund a war? They’ll be accused of not supporting the troops (when the best way to support the troops is to only use them in a Constitutional manner).

uselogic

Isn’t that all that’s required?

uselogic

Isn’t that all that’s required?

zizzer

…and e_rowe sums it up rather well and now he’s getting attacked for presenting a differing viewpoint as respectfully as can be.

There are so many people here who are glad to discuss issues with those they disagree on until they can no longer defend their position, and then they result to ad hominems or threats of banning.

Finrod

I know there’s a link underneath ‘Help’ to the Site Rules, but I think it would be a good idea to have a link to there directly from the front page.

Finrod

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the President 60 days to have troops in the field, plus 30 days to withdraw. Until then Obama can ignore Congress in regards to this.

Marcus_Traianus

That is tangential and not really directly related, but you can answer any time you feel ready.

I asked you to make the argument or provide facts which directly refute Levins’s original assertion. I didn’t ask for you to demur to Woods as a substitute answer. It is therefore not even clear to me that you have grasped the basic premise or assertion of Mr Levin’s original statement.

So my presumption is that you are either defending something you don’t completely understand, refuse to admit is sophistic, a fallacy or at best an illogical diversion.

e_rowe

If either Rand or Ron Paul run for president, I will gladly support them over any of the other big-government fanatics that are likely to run under the Republican banner.

As for my reference to Woods, I’m not sure what the problem is you have with that, since this is all in reference to a debate between him and Levin about what the Constitution says and what it means, in which Woods did present evidence for his view and Levin did not. I’m also not sure which of Levin’s assertions is supposed to be “the basic premise or assertion of Mr Levin?s original statement.” If you mean his claim that the constitutional convention was ?never going to give war-making power to Congress,” which, as I see it is the essential point of dispute here, then that false claim is easily dispensed with. For starters you can read Federalist 69, here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_69.html

streiff

George Washington committed US troops to war, a war which resulted in the largest single-day body count until First Manassas, without a declaration of war.

So what if the federalists didn’t contemplate this, or the anti-federalists for that matter, the fact is that this is a sterile argument that has been disavowed by history.

streiff

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2010/12/08/flashman-on-obama/

e_rowe

The one that resulted in a congressional investigation, a resignation of general St. Clair, a reprimand of the department of War, and the potential for impeachment, had Congress chosen to go that route? I’m not sure exactly how this precedent supports your view. I’m also not sure if that was a case in which Washington’s deployment of those troops was without prior congressional authorization.

But, supposing Washington did not act under the authority of Congress, if you mean that history has shown that presidents don’t always consult with Congress, then that’s never been disputed. If you think that somehow, because some presidents have not consulted with Congress prior to initiating a military action, it, therefore follows that they do so without violating their oaths of office, then that conclusion simply does not follow.

shanecoley

The view espoused on this site is that American families and property can be committed to battle by the whims of one man – representation is not to be expected by Americans – our leaders are too wise and sophisticated to be bound by such a silly requirement.

All hail neo-con bloggers and the left-right statists.

streiff

the argument is about a declaration of war. If you agree that a declaration of war isn’t necessary then you really have no argument with Levin and, like most of the rest of us, you would agree that Ron Paul is a moron.

Actually, the conclusion does follow. The actions of presidents, and supported either actively or tacitly, are facts. Not a single one of the Federalist papers was published after ratification of the Constitution. So why they have a role in analyzing what some of the framers of that document meant, their views do not bind anyone. Period.

To argue that our history since 1787 is rendered invalid because of some small number of people today claim to know what a portion of the framer’s intended but never quite got around to including either in the Constitution itself or in any of the ratification documents by the original 13 states is simply insane.

runner12

Might I just add that I take exception to the notion that anyone who believes Obama’s actions are unconstitutional is a Ron Paulian. For the record, I am NOT a supporter of Ron Paul, for too many reasons to list here.

However, from my own reading of Section 8 of the Constitution I can draw the conclusion that President Obama did not act within his constitutiona l powers.

I know there is disagreement about whether or not Congress actually has to declare war in order for military action to be constitutional. I am of the opinion that they do not necessarily have to do so. But they do have to give their approval. This is to preserve the balance of power between the branches of government. I would also note that Pres. Bush evidently believed in obtaining Congressional approval since he received it with both actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I have heard the argument from some conservatives that this statute in the Constitution has never been followed in the past and therefore does not apply now. This is a flawed argument because it is the exact same logic that is used by the Left to undermine our Constitution using judicial precedence. Prior disregard of the Constitution does not make it acceptable to disregard it now.

As conservatives, we cannot take up the mantle of defending the Constitution only when it suits us. We must be consistent or we will lose our credibility.

tribalseeds

I’m more of a reader so I generally don’t post here, but I felt that I had to say a few things. First, I think that this Thomas Woods actually does have some good points. Allowing the president to do whatever he wants militarily is just asking for an abuse of powers. What is to say how far a president will go?

A military controlled by the civilians (popularly elected congress) will combat any attempt at an abuse of power.

streiff

but why does anyone care what Tom Woods thinks on this subject? To put it mildly the man is a freakin crank.

lucky364

That is a tough one to swallow. Call me ignorant, but that seems incredible.

What benefits are denied?

Any links provided to educate myself on this issue would be appreciated.

streiff

under the Constitution the military is controlled by the commander in chief… the president. Civil control of the military is exercised through the SecDef and service secretaries. Congress has control of the military via appropriations, this is why military appropriations may not be for longer than two years.

lucky364

I found this.

http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/pension/wartime.htm

This seems to indicate the VA recognizes the Korean and Vietnam
“conflicts” as periods of war for benefits purposes.

zizzer

but no matter how crazy it is, your response is just another ad hominem.

zizzer

It reminds me of the quote by Kevin Gutzman: “Those who would give us a ?living? Constitution are actually giving us a dead Constitution, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachment of government power.”

jerry39

This was likely a lose lose for Obama and his ineptness has made it lose lose lose. Sure its fine to throw out one of his many errors was not seeking congressional approval (As Charles Krautheimer did brillianlty on Friday), but why waste the opportunity squibbling over what exactly the framers required as pre-requisite for military action.

Furthermore, what happens if we had a vote? Like I said this was a lose lose form the start, or at least from the moment Obama inserted himself into Eygypt – so why force our guys to bear part of the loss, by voting on it?

jerry39

This was likely a lose lose for Obama and his ineptness has made it lose lose lose. Sure its fine to throw out one of his many errors was not seeking congressional approval (As Charles Krautheimer did brillianlty on Friday), but why waste the opportunity squibbling over what exactly the framers required as pre-requisite for military action.

Furthermore, what happens if we had a vote? Like I said this was a lose lose form the start, or at least from the moment Obama inserted himself into Eygypt – so why force our guys to bear part of the loss, by voting on it?

streiff

isn’t an ad hominem.

Word to the wise. I won’t be screwed with by a Paultard… that for the rest you high school drop outs is an ad hominem.

Danielle Davis (ocleverone)

in 2009 for planes the military neither needed or wanted.

Yeah, they will be great for combating abuse of power.

aesthete

but your assertion that actions of the branches set up by the Constitution are Constitutional is errant — it is not the case that the source document of a country must endorse what has gone on in the past, any more than the Bible should be understood to endorse all that its purported followers have done while claiming it as an authority.

In this case, the Federalist papers, debates at the time of ratification and drafting, critical reading of the text and other texts relevant to the source document in question are proof enough that the executive is not prevented from unilaterally engaging military forces. While the practice of Presidents since is useful supporting data, it is not as authoritative as the aforementioned details when forming an opinion on Constitutionality.

aesthete

and I would agree that unilateral action on the part of the executive circumventing legislative and political processes is against the spirit of the Constitution, especially when the action in question was in no way a response to imminent danger. However, neither Woods nor I wrote the Constitution, and we don’t get to impute our preferred policies onto it. The truth is that the letter of the Constitution makes provision for the executive to commit military forces unilaterally, even if this use of that power was not foreseen by the Founders.

Menlo

People who saw it as “living” would seek to keep it in force.

evilredscandi

…and has started deleting posts critical of his position (even those that are polite and analytical) from the Facebook discussion. Dude has thinner skin than Obama.

shanecoley

Then I am too. So were many of our founders and so is anyone who is opposed to the modern warfare state which is obviously a monopoly of force, organized for legal plunder.

I have no respect for those who worship power and seek honor from people and institutions who give gifts and accolades derived from the plunder of producers. Given your disdain for just law and property rights, I am pleased to know that you consider Tom Woods to be in a separate category from yourself.

Parrot the statist party line. Squawk loudly. You will win many awards.

powertothepeople

So were many of our founders and so is anyone who is opposed to the modern warfare state which is obviously a monopoly of force, organized for legal plunder.

Plunder? Do you spend your days reading leftist publications? Must be since it is only them who claim we wage war to plunder the natural resources of the countries we fight. Problem is, spoils go to the victor but we do not act as if they do. We pay to wage the war, we pay to end the war, we pay to rebuild the beaten country. Sure is far from plundering.

I have no respect for those who worship power and seek honor from people and institutions who give gifts and accolades derived from the plunder of producers. Given your disdain for just law and property rights, I am pleased to know that you consider Tom Woods to be in a separate category from yourself.

I would break down each section of this nonsense, but it can all be defined by one word…….moronic.

Parrot the statist party line. Squawk loudly. You will win many awards.

Did you find that line all by yourself? Such a good boy, lets get you a treat. Good grief.

But then again, your defense of the idiot Ron Paul and your previous moronic request that Streiff be banned really clarifies your level of intelligence and ability to post anything worthwhile.

streiff

when I see someone who still looks to the Articles of Confederation for guidance and who posts at LewRockwell.com I know I’m looking at a crank or an idiot.

e_rowe

If that’s not the case, then why is Levin twisting himself into circles trying to get out of the indefensible position he’s gotten himself into?

Also, if you don’t want to listen to Woods, that’s fine. But are Andrew McCarthy, George Will, Ben Stein, Cal Thomas, and Peggy Noonan also cranks for thinking the same thing?

What about Tom McClintock, whose letter to Obama expressing the same view was published here at Red State?

e_rowe

Why did you ever think it was?

And do I correctly infer from your (and Levin’s) avoidance of the real issue of the president waging offensive war without congressional approval that you admit he does not have such authority?

If you do admit that, then we really don’t have an argument. If you don’t, then there’s no point bringing up declarations of war, as though this debate is about the difference between a declaration of war and an authorization of force or something like that. It looks to me like you and Levin are the ones who want to move the goal posts.

Our elected officials don’t take oaths to follow the precedent of previous elected officials in history. they take oaths to uphold the Constitution. So it’s not a matter of whether or not history is “valid” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). It’s a matter of whether or not they ought to keep their word.

shanecoley

You are too funny!!

You wrote: “We pay to wage the war, we pay to end the war, we pay to rebuild the beaten country.”

Thank you. You made m y point very well. The state and statists plunder American producers.

I have never said anything here about Ron Paul nor have I said anything about streif being banned. Did you make that up all by yourself? If you think you are correct, oh wise one, please show us all where these things were said.

shanecoley

Which of Tom Woods 11 books do you disagree with most?

Tom Woods believes that a person’s life, liberty and property should be protected. What part of that belief system do you disagree with?

shanecoley

aesthete,

You wrote: “The truth is that the letter of the Constitution makes provision for the executive to commit military forces unilaterally, even if this use of that power was not foreseen by the Founders.”

Precisely where may this letter be found in the Constitution?

e_rowe

I commend you for two things:

1) You recognize that the issue is whether or not the Constitution grants the president power to engage the military unilaterally, without any authorization from Congress at all, beyond prior military appropriations, or whether the authority granted only to Congress and not the president to declare war implies some meaningful authority reserved for them over the president’s use of the military. You haven’t tried to shift this the way Levin and Streiff have into some side debate about whether the president can also use the military when authorized by Congress via legislation that is something other than a declaration of war, as has been done so many times through history. Since what Obama is doing is, as you say, unilateral, and is neither authorized by a declaration of war, nor by any other act of Congress.

2) You recognize that the question of whether or not Obama is upholding his oath of office has everything to do with what the Constitution says, and what it means, that the question of what it means is a question of how it was interpreted by those who voted to ratify it, that the Federalist Papers provide very important commentary about what they understood the document to mean at that time, and that the opinions of presidents about what their power entailed after the fact when they were in office and under all of the pressure all presidents face to accrue more power to themselves are not nearly as important.

However, when you say, “the Federalist papers, debates at the time of ratification and drafting, critical reading of the text and other texts relevant to the source document in question are proof enough that the executive is not prevented from unilaterally engaging military forces,” could you share some of that proof with those of us who aren’t aware of it?

And might you also pass that information along to Mark Levin, since he is obviously completely unaware of it as well?

pblumel

Instead of conjuring imaginary conspiracies of “truthers” and “a-holes,” Levin should simply fess up to his error. He basically ascribed John Yoo’s 21st Century position on Constitutional war powers to our nation’s Founders, which is incorrect. If the Founders’ vision is outdated, the Constitution should be amended to reflect this. But simply ignoring the parts of the Constitution we don’t like puts all of the liberties guaranteed by it in danger.

“The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” — George Washington

“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . . the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” — James Madison

pblumel

You are correct about this, but are leaving out the bit that is relevant to this discussion. Yes, once we are at war, the commander-in-chief is responsible for decision-making and interference by Congress would be extra-constitutional except — as you note — regarding its control of appropriations.

However, the decision to *initiate* war is in the hands of the Congress. That is where Levin goes astray.

As Alexander Hamilton put it: “The Congress shall have the power to declare war’; the plain meaning of which is, that it is the peculiar and exclusive duty of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war. . . ”

James Wilson, in arguing for ratification of the Constitution in Pennsylvania, explained why this was so important to the Founders: “This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large. . . “

streiff

in 1791 George Washington authorized a military expedition against the Indians in the Northwest Territories without a declaration of war. The US Army suffered two major defeats (Josiah Harmar and Arthur St. Clair) and Washington refused to cooperate with a congressional investigation.

ATG

at reading this interaction. Back in the day we never argued with Paultards, we simply pointed them out for banning. I would hope that banning will soon be the model again with elections on the horizon.

Reading comprehension was never a big point with “them” but I admire your patience for even bothering to try and educate.

Good day sir!

e_rowe

Here’s a nice summary/defense of the Levin/Streiff/Dick Durbin view of the president’s war powers from someone at the CFR, showing how it’s based on a living document view of the Constitution.

http://blogs.cfr.org/lindsay/2011/03/25/is-operation-odyssey-dawn-constitutional-obama-versus-the-framers/

http://blogs.cfr.org/lindsay/2011/03/30/is-operation-odyssey-dawn-constitutional-part-ii/

http://blogs.cfr.org/lindsay/2011/03/31/is-operation-odyssey-dawn-constitutional-part-iii/

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL