In other words, I agree Mark Levin is right, the limited strike is constitutional as authorized by the war Powers act. My point is that it ain't constitutional because Mark Levin says so, nor would it be unconstitutional because Senator Rand Paul says that. Depending on how you want to handle the semantics, it might or might not be constitutional depending on how at least five Supreme Court Justices come down on the matter.
I have heard Mark Levin say that just because the Supreme Court declared a matter to be constitutional, does not mean it is so. On the other hand, it is hard argue in today's climate that holdings of the Supreme Court declaring a law or executive action constitutional or unconstitutional will not be honored as the final word.
Recently there was a thread in which I made the arguments that without Martin Luther and his 95 theses we would not have had a Thomas Jefferson and his Declaration of Independence. That is because Luther's appeal to authority utterly upended the medieval deductive epistemology which was the method to determine how we knew what we thought we know. God in heaven ordained the Pope and clergy who were authoritative by virtue of their position. Equally, king and nobility were divinely ordained and affirmed by Pope and clergy. Those who sought answers to questions of theological doctrine were told the answer and it was never conceded that the individual could can pursue the truth by his own reasoning. The practice was to find truth by deduction rather than by induction, by appeal to authority rather than to reason.
All of that was upended by Martin Luther when he insisted that Sola Scriptura was the source of truth thus enabling every individual to bypass clergy and Pope with the inevitable result, evidently quite contrary to Luther's personal impulse, that the authority of Kings would be equally undermined until it was sublimely expressed by Thomas Jefferson that, "all men are created equal."
It is ironic that the mere mention of Mark Levin's name in this thread's headline excites 271 FReepers to comment, putting the lie to the assertion that he has lost or had lost his following or at least his perceived influence. That assertion of his fading power was made by Trump supporters when he attacked Trump's policies . His antagonists might better have argued in support of the policies, but instead many FReepers resorted to denigrating Mark Levin. A further irony, now that Levin favors Trump policy, is exalted by the same people as a dispositive authority. Hypocrisy is an indelible characteristic of the human condition.
I say I am guilty of the same offense so I guess I am now attempting to purge myself of that hypocrisy with his mea culpa. As you know, I have vigorously defended Mark Levin's reputation on these threads because I thought he made significant contributions to the cause of constitutional conservatism. It is also true, however, that I invoked his name on a few occasions as authority. But Mark Levin has no more insight into the morality of abortion, homosexual marriage or NAFTA then do I and, I venture, then even you do. If the person of Mark Levin is the source of legitimacy for a principle, it is an easy step to make Mark Levin a disreputable source for the very same policy. We can call him a neocon, we can say he is Jewish who has steadfastly stood up for Israel, we can note that he is planning a trip this week or next as a pilgrimage to Israel. We can argue that he argues outwards from a desire to protect Israel. We can say he is doing this to repair falling ratings. But none of these things, all of which I do not believe to be true, have anything whatsoever to do with the constitutionality of Trump's bombing in Syria.
In the specific case, the constitutionality and legality of bombing poison gas facilities in Syria, is an occasion in which I skate dangerously close to coming into agreement with the likes of (gasp!) Diane Feinstein who believes in a living, breathing Constitution. This whiff of hypocrisy from me, a vigorous proponent of the Article V movement which was invigorated by Mark Levin. Normally I have no use for the argument to the effect that when the framers wrote the Constitution they had no idea of telephones, telegraphs, Internet, jet planes etc. and therefore their words can be discarded and modern realities can be brought in vogue. To the contrary, they had the principles well in hand and clearly laid them down quite applicable to new technology. But there is one bit of technology that has changed everything and that is nuclear bombs mounted on ICBMs. As John Kennedy said, we now have the power to wipe out mankind in a single day and we certainly do not have time during that day to deliberate in Congress for a declaration of war while civilization destroying missiles are on route. If there is no ability to retaliate, there is no hope of deterrence and there is no deterrence without rapid decision-making. That means decision-making in the hands of one man, the commander in chief. That has evolved ever since Truman dodged declaring war in the Korean "police action," into a practice which is been codified in the war Powers act to give the president the ability to act for limited amount of time without congressional authorization when national security is at stake. It has been expanded well beyond the ICBMs scenario to actions such as in Syria which are more akin to 19th-century gunboat diplomacy but that is the nature of government. There is enough of a vacuum of constitutional guidance in this brave new technological world for government eagerly to fill.
Unquestionably, the Constitution has been changed, the Article 1 power to declare war has been passed to the Article II executive but I see no other way to secure the survival of the nation. It would be better to amend the Constitution but instead we have the statute because we do not have the will to amend. Note, Congress' power to declare war has now been reduced to the power of the purse and the power of impeachment for waging a war Congress opposes. Unquestionably, the Constitution has been altered but I do not see any way short of an amendment to to operate safely in this new technological world.
Against Pope or presidents, even president Donald Trump or the highly regarded Mark Levin, I stand with Martin Luther, I can do no other.
