The Constitution Party on the War on Terror

I thought it might be helpful to look at issues other than immigration. The entire platform is in post 1, since there are issues other than the WOT and immigration.

America is engaged in an undeclared war with an ill-defined enemy (terrorism), a war which threatens to be never ending, and which is being used to vastly expand government power, particularly that of the executive branch, at the expense of the individual liberties of the American people.

The "war on terrorism" is serving as an excuse for the government to spend beyond its income, expand the Federal bureaucracy, and socialize the nation through taxpayer bailouts of the airlines, subsidies to the giant insurance corporations, and other Federal programs.

We deplore and vigorously oppose legislation and executive action, that deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating terrorism" or "protecting national security." Examples of such legislation are the National Security Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the proposed Domestic Securities Enhancement Act (colloquially known as "Patriot II").

The National Security Act is used by the federal government as a shroud to prevent the American people and our elected officials from knowing how much and where our tax dollars are spent from covert operations around the world. The National Security Act prevents the release of Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives, e.g., PDD 25, to the American people and our elected representatives. Not only are many of these used to thwart justice in the name of national security, but some of the operations under this act may threaten our very national sovereignty.

The USA PATRIOT Act permits arrests without warrants and secret detention without counsel, wiretaps without court supervision, searches and seizures without notification to the individual whose property is invaded, and a host of other violations of the legal safeguards our nation has historically developed according to principles descending from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Since we will no longer have a free nation while the federal government (or the governments of the several states, as the federal government may authorize) can violate our historic rights under such laws, we call for the rejection of all such laws and the ceasing of any such further proposals including the aforementioned Domestic Securities Enhancement Act.

The Constitution Party is unalterably opposed to the criminal acts of terrorists, and their organizations, as well as the governments which condone them. Individuals responsible for acts of terrorism must be punished for their crimes, including the infliction of capital punishment where appropriate. In responding to terrorism, however, the United States must avoid acts of retaliation abroad which destroy innocent human lives, creating enmity toward the United States and its people; and

In accord with the views of our Founding Fathers, we must disengage this nation from the international entanglements which generate foreign hatred of the United States, and are used as the excuse for terrorist attacks on America and its people. The 'war on terrorism" is not a proper excuse for perpetual U.S. occupation of foreign lands, military assaults on countries which have not injured us, or perpetual commitment of taxpayer dollars to finance foreign governments.

"I like President Bush personally. He is a sincere man. I respect his office. But, it is becoming painfully obvious that he has no plan to get our country out of the un-Constitutional, bloody, deadly, mess going on in Iraq. In fact, Mr. Bush and John Kerry both favor putting more troops into Iraq. In his recent press conference, Mr. Bush said our troops would be in Iraq 'as long as necessary,' 'for a while,' until Iraq is 'a free country.' He said Iraqis would provide their own security 'eventually.' I strongly disagree. As President, I would move immediately to withdraw all our troops from Iraq in a way that would provide for the safety of those Iraqis who worked with us during this illegal, wrong-headed war.

"I, like President Bush, hope that the Iraqi people, and all people, will be free from tyranny. But, unlike President Bush, I realize that, Constitutionally, as President, it would not be my job to use our military to spread 'freedom' everywhere in the world. Unlike President Bush, I, as President, would realize that I had been elected President of the United States, not President of the World.

But, ignoring Adams' wise advice, President Bush, using our military, has gone abroad and destroyed the monster Saddam Hussein who posed no threat to the vital national security interests of our country. The result: We are bogged down in a bloody and expensive mess with no end in sight. If elected President, however, I would move immediately to end our involvement in Iraq. I am not one who believes that when you are in a hole you should not be in, you should keep digging. "

Peroutka says, "Article I.8 of the US Constitution does not grant to Congress the power of "nation-building." If I am elected President, no longer will these United States seek regime change nor the concept of spreading democracy through warfare, and the children within these United States will not be committed to engage in a war to `free' any people."

To conduct an actual, all-out war constitutionally requires a declaration of war. Although the Constitution doesn't specify the form that should take, it's generally considered that a statement declaring openly the existence of a state of war should appear in it somewhere.

Agreed. The declarations against the Axis are a good model. But they aren't prescribed in the text.

The presidents Bush both conducted their congressional strategy in a way the CP should focus on more clearly if they want to enforce the Constitution. Both presidents did not ask for a specific action. They merely requested authority to act. While this seems pretty good on the face of it, the Framers' intent was that congressmen in particular should be held responsible by their own voters for voting for or against a specific act of war by the States. By following the Framers' intent strictly, we would have been spared Kerry's nonsense about having voted for it before he voted against it or whatever that drivel was he spouted. A specific declaration with prescribed actions keeps the Congress in fear of the voters. And that's not a bad thing. The shrewdness of the Bush strategies was that it let Congress off the hook with their own voters, allowing them in effect to later criticize any shortcoming in the war by saying they didn't authorize such-and-such action. The second Bush then merely relied upon the power of the imperial presidency to mask voter discontent as, indeed, it worked pretty well in practice. The present voter discontent with Bush and boredom with Iraq were par for the course no matter what action was taken. Indeed, Bush would be lameducked by now if he had invaded no countries. I think he is satisfied to have at least taken action. Our president is far more a man of action than words.

Although I'm looking at the Bush presidencies here, it's only fair to say that the war powers of the executive have steadily expanded to keep pace with America's foreign interests and global trade. So there is no reason to pretend that the Bush presidents have done anything so extraordinary or underhanded.

However, the more serious affront to the Constitution by the presidents Bush was that they sought to act under the auspices and the authority of the United Nations. Nothing in the Constitution allows for this. If a just cause for war exists, it exists without the United Nations. And, in practice, both times it was a mistake to run to the Unwashed Nitwits. In the case of Gulf War I, it virtually eliminated the option of pursuing Saddam into Baghdad and removing him then when it would have been a minor matter. Instead, we ended with Gulf War II as the price of pretending the U.N. has any legitimate authority comparable to our own sovereignty in matters of national security. The Constitution was written to be an insuperable document of authority, not merely a local agreement under the auspices of some shady global legislature like the U.N.

The CP should object most strongly to vague authorizations of war and to the loss of national sovereignty to the farce of some imaginary United Nations.

But to take down Iran's nuclear facility, while military action, is not to mount a full-scale war or invasion. It is a specifically targeted military action. It would be helpful if Congress authorized it, but the President as Commander in Chief has pretty broad authority. It is not unlimited, however.

But it is a matter of semantics, isn't it? Would you accept that an attack by Iran on the Pentagon or a forward staging area to be used in attacking Iran would be a legitimate objective of Iran's policy on neutralizing a 'specifically targeted military action'? Of course not.

In many respects, the modern objective of American policy over the last hundred years since the rise of the national security state during the run-up to the fascist era has largely been formulated as follows: America has the right to do anything to anyone at any time at any place it desires and therefore anyone who might object is a dupe or a terrorist or a drug trafficker or a communist or a subversive peacenik or a Nazi. And if nothing else, to oppose America is to oppose freedom and democracy. Whatever those terms actually mean in the modern West... But then, it's inconvenient to define them too clearly?

It all sounds fair if you're an American, of course. But we are something of a minority. And these positions are not strongly held even in this country.

Much of this discussion about formal declarations of war and being what is called isolationist relies on the often-quoted bit about America not sallying abroad in search of monsters. Naturally, this refers to the disastrous practices of European nobility over the centuries and reflects a common-sense appreciation of the first Constitutional era that our primary concerns should be to build trade and manufactures, exploit our vast resources and remain free of foreign entanglements. And these were all good policies in the era where America was far from everything. The Constitution's tariff section, for instance, was enacted to discourage imports and give domestic manufacture an edge over imports.

But the world is much smaller now. And it is more dangerous. We are in many ways as vulnerable to threats from around the world as were European states at the time of our founding.

So the Constitution Party holds many good positions. Some are very sound, others seem less relevant in a world that has changed so much in economics, technology, geography, demographics, etc. How relevant is the Constitution, really, in a post-modern, post-Christian society? It's not a document meant for the kind of commercial global empire we have become in the last eighty years. And that is why the Supreme Court feels entitled to play so loosely with it.

You have two issues. First an eye for an eye is rejected in the scripture quoted. Secondly, if the gospel of Jesus Christ is not based upon christian principle, then what?... My point? America didn't fight the revolutionary war while turning the other cheek to the brits. A foundation of the gospel of Christ as quoted by matthew is to love thy enemy as thyself and to turn the other cheek for him to smite thee yet again....Fighting the revolutionary war was hardly the "christian" thing to do.... Perhaps there is a time where Jesus said his followers are permitted to stand up to and slaughter their enemies?... Too many mixed signals I guess.

"Eye for an eye" is in fact the basis of the tort system, irrespective of the scripture quoted. Which I'm told doesn't reject it, rather rejects the extremes, as in actually taking an eye for an eye.

the revolutionary war was hardly the "christian" thing to do....Too many mixed signals I guess.

Perhaps the problem isn't mixed signals, rather attempting to base governing on scripture, as the CP attempts.

Feminization of the military is the direct result of too many spineless, "know-nothing about the military" men being in position to make decisions. Has nothing to do with the all volunteer force.

Patsy Schroeder and her feminist NAG cohorts ran roughshod over a bunch of wimps in the Congress, the DoD and the Executive Department!

We disagree.

There is a direct correlation between between the all volunteer force and the femanization of our military. When the all volunteer force objectives failed to meet the goal with male volunteers, each military branch was forced to accept volunteers from the only other available pool of potential volunteers, women. And accepting women into roles that had previously been male dominated led to the feminization of the military.

Crediting Pat Schroeder for the change gives her undo importance. The all volunteer force which ushered in the femeinization of our military was hatched in the first Nixon Administration, four years before Pat Schroeder was elected to Congress. The architect of the all volunteer force was none other than conservative economist Milton Friedman. The year was 1968.

The Nixon White House championed the all volunteer force and won approval In Congress ushering in the change in 1973.

This same all volunteer force has more recently found it increasingly difficult to attract US citizens, male or female, and has become a "fast track" to citizenship for immigrants, including illegal immigrants.

I do agree with you about the spineless men making decisions, but these are not men in positions of authority. Most men today lack the courage to serve. To those that do serve, they have my utmost respect. They are a dying breed within our society. Too few male US citizens will follow in their tracks.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.