[Peace-discuss] What élites are thinking…

[E. Wayne Johnson]

The bit of solipsism that declares the Constitution ambiguous is 
unfortunately not a new trick, the first recorded mention of which I am 
aware is the
dialectic of the serpent in Genesis 3.  Ambiguity is the easiest thing 
to prove by an Abbott and Costello sort of logic.  Costello says:
I am smart and rational and honest.  This thing confuses me.  Therefore 
this thing IS ambiguous (otherwise a smart and rational and honest
person like me would not be confused.)

I surely am confused as to why we the people should tolerate this 
/unbroken thread of American Imperialism/ that is impervious to regime 
change.
I only know one thing for sure.  You put the tar on first, then the 
feathers.  It doesnt work well to throw feathers then apply the tar.

It is clear enough to me that the power of kings was well recognized by 
the founders, and the power to declare war
was vested in the Congress so as to not give the Executive the powers of 
a king.

It is soon 10 years ago that Ron Paul spoke with significant 
praescientia on the subject.

*
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: March. 9, 1999
WAR POWER AUTHORITY SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CONGRESS
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS

[Page: H1022]

    The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.

    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the President has stated that should a peace 
treaty be signed between Serbia and Kosovo he plans to send in at least 
4,000 American soldiers as part of a NATO peacekeeping force.
    We, the Congress, have been informed through a public statement by 
the President that troops will be sent. We have not been asked to act in 
a constitutional fashion to grant the President permission to act. He is 
not coming to us to fully explain his intentions. The President is 
making a public statement as to his intentions and we are expected to 
acquiesce, to go along with the funding, and not even debate the issue, 
just as we are doing in *Iraq*.
    That is not a proper constitutional procedure and it should be 
condemned. Silence in the past, while accommodating our Presidents in 
all forms of foreign adventurism from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and 
Bosnia, should not be the standard the Congress follows.
    The Constitution is clear: Our Presidents, from Washington to 
Roosevelt, all knew that initiating war was clearly the prerogative of 
the Congress, but our memories are flawed and our reading of the law is 
careless. The President should not be telling us what he plans to do, he 
should be giving us information and asking our advice. We are 
responsible for the safety of our troops, how taxpayers' dollars are 
spent, the security of our Nation, and especially the process whereby 
our Nation commits itself to war.
    Citing NATO agreements or U.N. resolutions as authority for moving 
troops into war zones should alert us all to the degree to which the 
rule of law has been undermined. /The President has no war power, only 
the Congress has that./ /*When one person can initiate war, by its 
definition, a republic no longer exists.*/
    The war power, taken from the Congress 50 years ago, must be 
restored. If not, the conclusion must be that the Constitution of the 
United States can and has been amended by presidential fiat or treaty, 
both excluding the House of Representatives from performing its duty to 
the American people in preventing casual and illegal wars.
    Some claim that the Kosovo involvement must be clarified as to where 
the money will come to finance it, the surplus or Social Security. This 
misses the point. We have and should exert the power of the purse, but a 
political argument over surpluses versus Social Security is hardly the 
issue.
    Others have said that support should be withheld until an exit 
strategy is clearly laid out. But the debate should not be over the exit 
strategy. It is the entry process that counts.
    The war powers process was set early on by our Presidents in dealing 
with the North African pirates in the early 19th century. Jefferson and 
Madison, on no less than 10 occasions, got Congress to pass legislation 
endorsing each military step taken. It has clearly been since World War 
II that our Presidents have assumed power not granted to them by the 
Constitution, and Congress has been negligent in doing little to stop 
this usurpation.
    In the case of Kosovo, no troops should be sent without the consent 
of Congress. Vague discussion about whether or not the money will come 
out of Social Security or the budget surplus or call for an exit 
strategy will not suffice. If the war power is taken from the President 
and returned to the Congress, we would then automatically know the funds 
would have to be appropriated and the exit strategy would be easy: when 
we win the war.
    Vague police actions authorized by the United Nations or NATO, and 
implemented by the President without congressional approval, invites 
disasters with perpetual foreign military entanglements. The concept of 
national sovereignty and the rule of law must be respected or there is 
no purpose for the Constitution.

David Green wrote:
> I would suggest that the "wise men" are back to put a "realist" face 
> on all of this, saving us from taking the ideological debate too 
> seriously. Just see Baker as George Kennan, Christopher as Averell 
> Harriman.
>  
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08baker.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08baker.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print>
>  
> DG
>
> *//*
> discuss
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080708/b6727af8/attachment.html