Week after week it's easy for me to blog with compelling arguments that most things Congress does is unconstitutional. by Kenn Jacobine
(libertarian)
Sunday, April 18, 2010
But, up until about two years ago with the advent of Ron Paul's Freedom Revolution and last year's birth of the Tea Partiers, most Americans would have said, so what if something is unconstitutional? That document is outdated and irrelevant. These are modern times with issues unimaginable to the Founders. Nonsense, the eternal truths contained in the U.S. Constitution are as relevant today as they were in the 1700s.
Take making war for instance. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. In that same section, Congress has the power to finance the endeavor. Since the end of World War II, the clause pertaining to declaring war in the Constitution, like many others, has been almost totally ignored by both the Congress and president. Additionally, Congress has rarely if ever invoked its power to restrain presidential power by controlling the purse strings of the military during times of war. The consequences have been horrendous.
In the 1960s and 1970s it led to an 11 year war in Southeast Asia. Instead of a declaration of war the military action was justified on the basis of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed in 1964. The resolution gave President Johnson the authorization to do whatever was necessary in order to assist "any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty." This vague and open ended wording led to much criticism of the president and his Secretary of Defense over how they conducted the war. Specifically, President Nixon's expanding of it to include the bombing of Cambodia made an already unpopular war almost an event that tore the country in two. It also led to over 50,000 American and countless Southeast Asian lives being lost. The conflict ended in defeat for the U.S. and spending for the war caused high inflation which hurt American households, facilitated our manufacturing base to move overseas, and eventually brought on problems like the Savings and Loan crisis.
In current times we find ourselves mired in two conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. To be sure, Congress did not declare war in either circumstance. For Afghanistan, it passed a resolution authorizing the president to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. For Iraq, the resolution authorized the president to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
It seems like Washington never learns from its mistakes. Again, loosely worded resolutions instead of firm declarations with a narrow objective allowed President Bush to abuse his powers by spying on Americans, holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely, and expand the bombing to include other countries other than Afghanistan and Iraq, namely Pakistan. In addition to over 1 million Iraqi and Afghani deaths from the main theaters of war, 1 in 3 people killed in the expanded bombings of Pakistan have been civilians.
Because Washington has not followed the eternal truth that war should be entered into and conducted carefully, our government is primarily responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that because of the threats of invasion that came from the previous administration and with American military might all around it Iran is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Even though Saddam was a vile and ruthless tyrant his Iraq acted as a counterweight to Iran. Today, Iraq is in chaos and if U.S. forces do ever leave it will be ripe for a takeover by Islamic extremists.
A Republican Congress unfortunately did not deny George W. Bush the ability to launch an unjust war on Iraq based on lies, misinformation and his desire to avenge Saddam Hussein for allegedly sending a hit squad to assassinate his father. One man made the decision to start the war in which Americans would die and hundreds of billions of dollars would be spent. This was not the intent of the Founders who were wise enough to give the powers of declaring wars and financing them to the Congress. The Founders gave them to Congress because it is a deliberative body that represents the many viewpoints of Americans. These viewpoints, like in the enactment of laws, place a check and balance on the solitary power of the president. Congress has abdicated this constitutional power and consequently has propped up an imperial presidency – something the Founders, other than Hamilton and Adams, would have vehemently rebelled against.
In 2006 the Democrats took back control of Congress with a pledge to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For a time there was hope that they would restore the constitutional balance of power in war making. They simply could have done this by cutting funding for the wars. But instead, Congress continues to finance the wars and in fact has gone along with President Obama's wishes to continue funding bombings in Pakistan and to escalate the war in Afghanistan - so much for the hope that Congress would exert control over the powers granted to it and rein in the powers usurped by the president.
Wars are costly both in terms of human life and monetary expense. Unless an attack on U.S. soil is imminent, Congress must retain its constitutional power to declare war and use its authority over funding it to limit the president's actions. By not following these constitutional mandates we have become a militaristic society almost constantly at war in adventures far beyond what the Founders envisioned. This has caused a drain on our families, our finances, and our country's reputation in the world. Fortunately, many Americans are finally waking up to this reality.
Kenn Jacobine teaches internationally and maintains a summer residence in North Carolina.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1
thumb so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kenn Jacobine only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kenn Jacobine is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I whole heartily agree that the Congress is almost totally oblivious as to the content or even the existence of The Constitution and Bill of Rights except when it is in their perceived best interest. While the current residence of the White House, he has no allegiance to them at all.
“Take making war for instance. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. In that same section, Congress has the power to finance the endeavor. Since the end of World War II, the clause pertaining to declaring war in the Constitution, like many others, has been almost totally ignored by both the Congress and president. Additionally, Congress has rarely if ever invoked its power to restrain presidential power by controlling the purse strings of the military during times of war. “ A strict adherence to the Constitutional method of declaring war, Congress has done it a total of 5 times officially and the President has acted 125 times, has morphed into a proposes disposes method of making war in this country. The way Congress deals with this type of issue is to avoid responsibility for the Action, whenever possible, deniability and electability is, for the most part, more important than honor too these people. It has been said that one of the primary reasons for a President is just those occasions where action rather that rhetoric is paramount.
“50,000 American and countless Southeast Asian lives being lost.” Countless = Millions, with and “M”
“The conflict ended in defeat for the U.S. and spending for the war caused high inflation which hurt American households, facilitated our manufacturing base to move overseas, and eventually brought on problems like the Savings and Loan crisis.” I'm not quit sure how the Viet Nam War forced business over seas or burdened the American family with inflation and encouraged the Savings and Loan debacle. I do recall Nixonian progressive style price controls, progressive governmental mandates and progressive manipulation of tax codes “social engineering” that promoted poor banking and business decisions when it came to commercial real estate. The passage of TEFRA changed tax rules on accelerated depreciation and poof 20 to 30% of the value in commercial real estate disappeared over night. Poof went the Savings and Loans. “poof” being used as a technical term to explain to investor's exactly what happen to their money. A fellow traveler was the CRA “Community Reinvestment Act” a sliver that festered for 20 yrs. Until the Clinton administration enabled the housing bubble by putting teeth in the governing CRA regulations. See Alan Greenspan's latest comments before Congress.
“ A Republican Congress unfortunately did not deny George W. Bush the ability to launch an unjust war on Iraq based on lies, misinformation and his desire to avenge Saddam Hussein for allegedly sending a hit squad to assassinate his father. One man made the decision to start the war in which Americans would die and hundreds of billions of dollars would be spent.” The vote in question was, whether rightly or wrongly equal to a super majority in both houses of Congress. Ihave always felt that the whole purpose was to protect our energy supplies and place the 4th. ID on the Iraq and Iranian border. The first being necessitated by the total lack of energy policy, a lack of domestic production and the idiocy of the powerful progressive politically correct so called anthropogenic global warming opportunistic collectivists. The second was I believe may have been a prophylactic attempt to deal with emerging realities in the Middle East. What we need to remember is that hindsight is almost always user friendly.
“and consequently has propped up an imperial presidency – something the Founders, other than Hamilton and Adams, would have vehemently rebelled against.” To mention Adams and A.H. In the same breath in regards to this subject? Adams was never in favor of an Imperial President, It was political rhetoric, further more Abigail would never have tolerated it. As for Hamilton the original progressive well.............He wasn't native born either.
“In 2006 the Democrats took back control of Congress with a pledge to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.” I'll be more than happy to send you a Florida property brochure. Sorry about that, my incredulity came out.
Wars are costly and for the most part the reasoning and results are subjected to infinite analysis by political opportunists on both sides of the issues. History will be the judge. As for me I have an old friend who was in the air over the Tonkin Gulf, in an A4, He was witness to the North Vietnamese torpedo boats on both occasions.
Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment extensively.
The inflationary practices of the Fed to finance Johnson's Great Society programs and the spending on the war in Southeast Asia is what caused the general price increases (wrongly called inflation) of the 1970s. The Savings and Loan crisis of the late 70s early 80s happened because banks introduced higher yielding money market accounts and eventually the Fed raised interest rates over 20%. Thus, people took their money out of S&Ls to get higher savings rates in banks and most S&Ls were locked into long-term low rate mortgages. There was a money drain and when the Fed raised rates the S&Ls lost a fortune on the difference between what they had charged their customers and what it was costing them to borrow money from the Fed.
In terms of business moving overseas, when the costs got high they went offshore. You can't blame them. Although, most statists blame greed induced by the Reagan Administration. One of the best things he (and Paul Volker) did for job growth was lower inflation through high interest rates.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-27 08:53:26
Take making war for instance. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war.
This is one of those things that libertarians need to get through their thick skulls.
The Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress, but the power to wage war to the Prez. That's the way the Constitution has always been interpreted, from the first time Jefferson [or was it Washington?] activated military units to go off and shoot somebody or other to the most recent war started by Bush.
People who view it the way libertarians do [and liberals when there's an R in the White House] keep filing nonsensical federal lawsuits which universally get tossed out on their ears. No, seriously, if you dash you skull into that brick wall one more time it'll fall down. Really!
Doncha get tired? or sore? or brain-damaged?
It's obvious that either 1] the Constitution is unclear on duties and authorities in this area, or 2] it's clear, properly interpreted, but many people don't like it ...
So change the damned thing!
We're allowed to amend the Constitution to remove [perceived] inconsistencies and make it more relevant to our current desires. It's clear to all - or it should be - that nothing is going to be different until then. So why aren't you?
Until you do, I'm getting rather sick and tired of listening to all the carping and weeping and rending of garments over the subject. It's tired and lame. Get a better argument.
It seems like Washington never learns from its mistakes
If they did, they'd be in a very short line. Almost no one does, individually or institutionally.
I don't know why anyone has these lofty ambitions for our government and our government only when the nearest target for the lesson is no further than one's mirror. Never mind; I have those lofty ambitions as well. You're entitled to your own.
However: spying on Americans has pretty much always been done, along with all of the other incursions into civil liberties that lotsa people like to lay at the feet of Bush. He's little but a lightning rod. There was nothing Bush did that others - many others - had not done before him. And sometimes even for the same reason.
No, I didn't like either - and still don't. But I'm honest enough, and knowledgeable enough, to not scapegoat for superficial and dishonest reasons.
Those captured in hostile action are allowed to be detained, by IntLaw, for the duration of the conflict. Without "charge". They're putative combatants, and that's all that matters. I'm getting more or less tired of this lame claim as well.
IntLaw also allows a nation signatory to cease fire treaties to enforce the terms of those cease fires by military force when those treaties are broken by actions [real or imaginary] by the "other side". Whether you like how Bush sold the action to the American people with the politics typical of selling wars, the reality is it was not "unjust" in any meaningful way. Iraq was in violation of the cease fire ... from Day One of the thing.
This does not, though, speak to the scope and longevity of the military action chosen and there are indeed many well-grounded arguments against a full-scale invasion/conquest/occupation.
Make those arguments; I'll help - with gusto. But the "unjust war" thing is a non-player.
