Posted on 12/10/2011 1:46:40 PM PST by rabscuttle385
James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution,” wrote: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Enabling governments to “control the governed” has always been easy, as tyranny has long been mankind’s default position: Virtually every regime in history has sought to increase its power. Obliging government to “control itself” has always been the hard part, and nations that value freedom have always tried to place limits on their rulers in recognition of the fact that governors are not always angels.
Most Americans, from the Founding Fathers to the current generation, would likely agree that decisions to wage war are probably the most important decisions our federal government makes. Madison noted that it was a fairly universal truth that the more powerful a government’s leaders, the more interest there will be in going to war. “The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” Madison wrote. “[The Constitution] has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”
Last week, Senator Jim DeMint studied the question of the nine-year-long Iraq War, and decided to end it. I don’t mean “end” the Iraq War in merely the sense that President Obama now advertises — bringing the troops home, ending hostilities, etc. Hell, President Obama starts and ends wars all the time (see: Libya) without even the pretension of seeking legal authority. Sen. DeMint’s support was for something much different and more significant: He voted to end the Iraq War by demanding that the president no longer be able to legally wage it.
The United States hasn’t officially declared war since World War II. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan — none of these were “wars” officially, though the men and women who fought in them might beg to differ. President Bush took us to war with Iraq in 2003 in the same extra-constitutional manner: He went to Congress to get “authorization,” but still both Congress and the president apparently thought that the Iraq War wasn’t important enough to merit an official declaration of war, as the Constitution demands.
When Senator Rand Paul offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act last month that would revoke the authorization given to Bush in 2003 regarding Iraq, only three Republican senators joined him: DeMint, Dean Heller of Nevada and moderate Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine. There were plenty of Democrats who voted for Paul’s amendment. Of course, there were plenty of Democrats who were against the Iraq War from the beginning, though they were probably not motivated by limited-government considerations.
Sen. DeMint supported the Iraq War. Most Republicans did. Conservatives can now debate whether that support, in retrospect, was justified. But Sen. Paul’s amendment was a debate over whether the Iraq War is still justified today. Paul’s amendment was also a debate over whether giving the president of the United States carte blanche in Iraq is still justified. Only four Republicans said “no.”
It is DeMint’s vote that is the most instructive. Sen. Paul is a tea party champion who has always been upfront about his opposition to the Iraq War. While her vote was commendable, Sen. Snowe is not exactly a guiding light for most Republicans. Sen. Heller probably has the lowest profile of the four. But Sen. DeMint is a conservative’s conservative. The right has long followed DeMint’s lead on most issues. Conservatives need to follow it on Iraq and executive power too.
If the Republican Party has any interest in limited government or the Constitution, the president’s authority to wage war in Iraq must eventually be revoked. As it stands now, this president and any future president will have the power to do whatever he likes militarily in Iraq without so much as consulting Congress. Many Republican members of Congress were rightly miffed that President Obama did not consult them before his recent military action in Libya. As it stands, Congress now gives any president free rein to do the same in Iraq. Forever.
For conservatives to dismiss war and foreign policy as the one area where presidents should have unlimited power is to dismiss the very purpose of our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. As Madison recognized, the president should not be entrusted with the power to act unilaterally, especially when it comes to war.
Americans must choose between Madison’s understanding of executive power and Obama’s. Last month, Sen. Jim DeMint chose Madison’s. His fellow conservatives must eventually choose too.
Exactly. Calling themselves conservative, but aligning themselves with Dennis Kucinich’s ‘Department of Peace.’
The best phrase I’ve heard describing them is ‘liberal tightwads,’ but ‘cowards’ also suits them well.
________________________________
If being conservative means not fighing usless wars with useless people but instead, making out country safe with defensive tactics and insisive covert military ops, I am all for it. Staying in Iraq does nothing more for our defense. We would have to occupy every country in the world, and it wont work.
The Iraq and Afghan wars did succeed in attracting enemy fighters’ attention to their home turf instead of America. As much as I did not see much benefit to having an extended urban fight there, it did draw enemy fighters away from America.
IMHO, however, in the big picture, the optimal solution to national security is very easy if approached the right way.
A) Congress should declare war on islamic enemies in general, i.e., anyone or any group that is islamic is a potential enemy combatant.
B) American courts and the Federal government then need to handle cases differently than they do now where a person is 1) accused of mass murder type actions AND also 2) the person declares that they hate America or seek to destroy it, i.e., they are part of the war. They need no-nonsense scheduling of the prosecution. If the person is a citizen, they need to treat it as a treason case. If they are not a citizen - including being here illegally or legally - then they need to be treated as an enemy combatant in the war, and sent through a military tribunal.
C) If America is attacked and the source of the attack is traced back to a foreign nation, the war is already declared, that nation simply becomes the next battleground. That nation should be flattened as quickly and efficiently as possible, with extreme prejudice, and that battle ends and most forces return home. The only ones left there should be implementing our extraction of payment for the task, i.e., the spoils of war. No Mr. nice guy, no worrying about American anti-war types crying, just do it. The surviviing citizens of the defeated nation are on their own. Every military that we utterly destroy makes the world that much safer a place. The remaining nations of the world will quickly take notice and the whining and chatter will gradually subside as everyone realizes the new reality - we’re serious. In the mideast, if a number of those nations were wacked in this way, the mideast problems would be over very quickly.
I’ve come to realize even the word terrorist kind of soft-pedals what’s really going on. The enemy folks don’t want to terrorize us, they actually all want us converted to islam or dead. Terrorism, IMHO, is trying to blow up a plane and hoping to cause political change by doing it. But islamic leaders actually say they want all Americans dead; they seek a war to the death, not just to terrorize us.
IMHO.
Setting aside that the constitution used the verb "declare," is there any legal distinction between the "authorization" and a "declaration" in terms of international law or leeway of President has to conduct the war?
They’ll be pulling their hair out when they discover that everyone they carelessly branded “neocon” (a favorite epithet of the liberals) was absolutely right about Iran. Won’t take long now. We did not start this war, as they have been brainwashed by the leftists into believing.
The rest of your post about 'occupying every country in the world' is just silly hyperbole.
Just a few posts above you some Paulite leftie used the epithet,'neocon.'
And they think we actual conservatives don't notice..... :)
Disagree with his politics if you will (we all do about something), but make sure you're right when you accuse him of having his children 'avoid the military.'
btw, I just happened to look at a bunch of liberal sites on Kristol, and they called him a 'neocon' ......just.....like.......you......did. :)
You'd be surprised at just what that "Chickenhawk List" looks like if you researched it -- it's a who is who of most Neocon America, including Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, etc. Their wars are good enough for killing your kids, but not for them or theirs.
My husband is a decorated Vietnam AF Vet who enlisted to go to Vietnam. A close family member, same age, was college deferred out for most of Vietnam but not quite all of it, so eventually he was asked to report -- he deliberately aggravating a minor skin condition on his right hand with Clorox for a week so that it showed he "couldn't hold a gun" and got declared 4F.
Now guess which one of these two is the Neocon and guess which one is more careful about reasons for us going to war? Guess which one had a son who went into the military, and which one in spite of arguing for us going into Iraq, sniffed at the very idea that his 24 yr son should enlist?
I know what the cost of war looks like, I live with it everyday. There are good reasons to go to war, in defense of home and country. But those reasons should not include just becoming a pawn on some arrogant policy geeks chessboard - -especially one who has no respect for you, your life or your country --only their egos and their globalist financiers plan for them.
There was actually one element to having a military draft that made sense: When people were forced to send their own sons to war, they thought twice about the value and the costs of that war. Today, all they have to do is slap up an "I Support the Troops" post on their Facebook page and they think that they are a real "Patriot"! Personally, it turns my stomach.
Son in the military, support the military, supported the necessary invasion of Iraq and getting rid of Saddam.
Opposed the hippie peaceniks during Viet Nam, just as I oppose the Paul punk peaceniks now. Same breed. Leftist cowards.
Thank your husband for his service, chip on your shoulder and irrelevant personal Clorox anecdote notwithstanding......
Yeah, Ron Paul -- one of the only Republican candidates who actually served in the military --as an AF Flight Surgeon during wartime -- and the candidate who has more financial support from the active duty military than all the other Republican candidates combined. Yes, must ignore those "leftist cowards" who actually put their lives on the line for our country./s
Waht are you smoking? You are a complete joke.
The real question is what is Ron Paul smoking. His foreign policy is in line with Dennis Kucinich's. It is Paul who is the joke, not me.
No, the real point is that you can have whatever foreign policy view you want -- and you can disagree with Jim De Mint or Ron Paul as much as you like -- but what you don't get to do is spit on and dismiss the opinions of those who have served in our military and are serving, as all just being "Leftist, hippie, Peaceniks". They've paid and are paying the price to be heard. They deserve that respect at least, given that they are the ones who have and are fighting the wars we are talking about.
You know, the hell with what I think about these wars. But don't diss them because they don't deserve it!
I don't think you do.
I think that you're naturally off the reservation.
Another FReeper whom I hold in esteem once referred to you as "a mad puppy with a chew toy." After all, you said you were leaving this thread; instead, nearly one-third of the posts on this thread are yours, including at least five made after you said you were leaving.
And to think a few months back the meme was "Scott Brown for President." We rush to every new face on this forum and always wind up with the same loser, globalist candidate.
Absolutely! Unleash the dogs of war completely or bring them home now. I worry about losing our brothers n sisters who have to adjust if there is a big wave returning. Hard to re -intergrate. I hope this is done responsibly.
The problem comes when he wants to become Commander in Chief with a dangerous, head-in-the-sand, foolhardy, brain-dead foreign policy.
btw, if you think every single veteran is a conservative, you'd better think again.....
This one was highly avoidable. For the record I am not antiwar. My R.O.E's would get me labeled a barbarian in here by some who were pro-Iraqi war. Not one 911 terrorist was Iraqi if I remember right. But Saddam did need too be taken out and there was other Constitutional ways to do it cheaper, likely faster, and would not have involved deploying troops. It's called letters of marque and/or reprisals.
War is indeed the most serious act congress can authorize and it should never be taken lightly nor should it be bypassed in the manners it has since Korea. NEVER should a member of the Armed Forces be asked to shed blood in combat without a formal declaration of war or letter of marque or reprisal being issued. The authorization was U.N. resolution enforcement crap. WE declared war on Germany and Japan as well with about two simple paragraphs. Look at the authorization of force in Iraq. It's pages of CRAP!
Some it seems do not understand what war is for and how it is too be fought. I'll give you a clue you don't fight it in the limited tieing our troops hands behind their back manner we did in Korea, Nam, and Iraq. You go to war with troops hands free. You do not second guess mens actions in combat when it comes to where they shoot unless it is at their own troops. War should always be for the elimination of a stated threat done with extreme prejudice.
The policy of going to war too rebuild nations needs to be ended. It is morally wrong. I remind Bush backers Bush himself condemned nation building Clinton did. You go to war too destroy infrastructure and kill people. There are no innocents in an enemy nation. That is immoral some might say? No it's not and some need too read Joshua and get GOD's plan for war.
We had good soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines being Court Martialed over their actions under fire in Iraq while Bush and his useless McNamara the second Sec of Defense Rummy did nothing. They didn't support our troops so why would congress? Congress {Murtha for example} was calling for our troops heads and ZILCH from Secof DEF or POTUS in desfense of the troops in combat. COWARDS!!!! They owed it too the troops to stand up for them. War is not for making buddies richer. If that is the case that this is the purpose for war then Smedley Butler was right.
The war in Iraq should have been declared and media kept home. It should have left all infrastructure including communications, bridges, buildings, power generation facilities, and defense facilities in smoldering ruins. Anything Iraq could have used to produce weapons destroyed and our troops upon completion of that goal called back home for a victory celebration. But anyone with minimal military knowledge could tell by the third night of bombing that this was going to be just what it become. A nation building boondoggle and now Iraq is armed much better than it was when Saddam was alive. We have idiots for leaders. We never should have re-armed Iraq.
You don't build them new roads, bridges, power plants, schools, hospitals, etc nor do you ask a United States Member of the Armed Forces too do such as that is not their job. Their job is too kill and destroy the enemy and protect our nation.
I was against the war in Iraq because no war was formerly declared by congress to obligate congress too it's military conclusion. The results? The same as Nam and Korea. Why should we expect different?
It also amazes me that places we had every right to declare war against we didn't like Yemen and Somalia. We got into this terrorism mess thanks to an E.O. penned by Gerald Ford which in effect ended Letters of Marque and Reprisals as a means to address foreign threats. Ford stopped covert assassinations of foreign heads of state. From that time forward terrorism took hold. Heads of state knew they were safe and hell was unleashed afterward in the Middle East and Med Sea Basin starting with the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
I support our troops 100% unconditionally. Does even our Republicans these days? Cuts continued through the Bush terms despite a two house GOP majority. Not that DEMs are better they aren't but the GOP has become one with the DEMs on foreign policy and our military.
National Defense is the number one function of government and they can't even manage it correctly. Yet because someones idol POTUS sits in the Oval Office persons on both sides are willing to give their parties POTUS Carte Blanche privileges with regards too sending troops into harms way. History will not judge any POTUS from Bush Sr through present kind.
Hi, mk! rabs is trying to stir up trouble again. :)
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.