This is our Constitution, and it's worked 'DAMN WELL'

FNC ^ | 11/1/26 | Mark Levin

[Eleutheria5]

Fox News host Mark Levin delves into who historically has had the power to declare war in accordance with the Constitution on 'Life, Liberty & Levin.'

Explains the distinction between "making war" and "declaring war," "power of the purse" and other basic constitutional principles, concerning which a host of so-called "experts" are studiously ignorant. Expounds on the substance of the Constitutional Convention, the debates and different factions, which resulted in the text of the Constition as it now is.

Transcript linked below video.

---

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; War
KEYWORDS: congress; declaration; president; war

[Eleutheria5]

Put your leftard relatives in front of your laptop, tie their hands down and hold their heads still, with their eyes held open a la Clockwork Orange, and make them watch this. It can't hurt. They might never visit you again;-)

[i_robot73]

“Worked”....until early 1900’s. It’s been dead for quite some time.

L. Spooner. L. Spooner, white courtesy phone, please. L. Spooner

[hanamizu]

Don’t know if pointed this out, but the last time Congress declared war was in June, 1942 against Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania.

[Dr. Sivana]

“Worked”....until early 1900’s.

I think you could argue that it failed in the 1860s. It would have been better if rules/prohibition of secession had been in the document.

[Eleutheria5]

He did.

[Eleutheria5]

That would have encouraged more secession. Equal protection has been frequently honored in the breach, too.

Minnesota might just secede and join Canada, but I think Canada has no use for them, either, nor Mexico for California. San Francisco might declare independence and call itself Fudgepackistan.

[Dr. Sivana]

That would have encouraged more secession.

Maybe. That might have been better than half a million dead men and numerous unhealable wounds.

[Eleutheria5]

More secession would have meant more dead and wounded. The opening arguments in the Federalist Papers was that a strong central government would discourage wars between the states. There has thus far only been one, not counting the Whiskey Rebellion, and the bitterness lingers.

[cgbg]

For those who have never read it:

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-no-treason-no-vi-the-constitution-of-no-authority-1870

[Dr. Sivana]

There has thus far only been one, not counting the Whiskey Rebellion, and the bitterness lingers.

That "one" was a big one. What I find to be sad is that 150 years after the fact, those leaders of the Confederacy who had been regarded as Brave and Noble are being attacked as if we were still in thge middle of the whole thing. Enough time should have passed that it should be voewed as dispassionately as the Napoleonic Wars, but it has gotten worse.

[cgbg]

One reason for that is because genocide of white people has become a major goal for the left.

Many folks here remain in denial—but if you listen to the “activist” chants in Minneapolis, Portland and Seattle the leftists make it very clear.

[FreeReign]

Explains the distinction between "making war" and "declaring war," "power of the purse" and other basic constitutional principles, concerning which a host of so-called "experts" are studiously ignorant.

Mark gets this right.

[Eleutheria5]

And the understanding of the causes of the conflict has been rewritten in crayon.