Posted on 03/28/2011 4:05:28 AM PDT by jenk
A discussion has brewed on the right concerning the War Powers of the Executive Branch. I have read both Woods' "smack down" (his words) and listened to Levin's reasoned debate on his radio show, as well as the relevant Federalist Papers, checking back to see who wrote them, and the constitution itself. I have also read Yoo's discussion and the argument for Bush's war powers in the area of the War on Terror. That said, I have no tolerance for the Ron Paul view, nor many of his followers, not because I'm a huge fan (student) of Mark Levin, but because I have had to argue with Ron Paul supporters all last year in their never ending quest to elect fellow Paulistas as Republicans. When they failed in that endeavor, they put all their support behind a race spoiler, making no bones about wanting to elect a Democrat, because if they (the true conservatives and everyone else is a RINO) weren't going to DC, then no one from the right will either. They have no allegiance to the Republican Party, they merely use it as a vehicle to gain power.
So, after reading all of it, and going through last year's elections, and noting the usual smugness of the libertarian view that is on display in Wood's comments, I have come to think that Levin's reasons for criticizing Ron Paul are on very solid ground.
Ron Paul and his libertarian flavor of republicanism is closer to the liberal view of the world than the conservative view when it comes to foreign policy, and it is especially evident by the company they keep. Woods' latest "challenge" to Levin appeared at LewRockwell.com. Lew is a libertarian who argued against the US's involvement in WWII. While the Ron Pauls of the nation call those who understand the realities of the world, "neo-cons" and not "true conservatives" they continue to latch on to the foreign policy ideology of the left, that is, pacifism, a line not crossed by most American conservatives who make up this great nation.
What is not clear to me in their warped philosophy, is how they can accept the expansion of America through 1959, but will not accept what has happened worldwide up to that time, nor since.
Woods attempts to answer the argument that, “The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress.”
Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution – which refers to the president as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” – has been interpreted this way. But what the framers actually meant by that clause was that once war has been declared, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war." and "The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack)."
This view is in concert with most Ron Paul enthusiasts, that, America should not, under any circumstances, entangle itself in any foreign war. That is the cornerstone of Ron Paul theory, isolationism. But also, it is his push that our country is "empire-building" because we are in 140 countries, and we can't afford these unconstitutional wars. With the Ron Paul faction, it is always money over human life. If Ron Paul is indignant, he should immediately gather support to defund the military strikes.
The argument between Libertarians and Conservatives erupts when Conservatives dare look at the realities of 2011 as opposed to those of the eighteenth century, and when talking of war, this particular military faction continually lands on the side of "peace without war."
But there cannot be peace without war. It goes against human nature. How the war is handled is usually a bone of contention between those on the right and those on the left, however, when those libertarians on the right adopt the views of those on the left-against the right, tell me, who are the conservatives?
Tom Woods explains away the arguments posed for the power of the executive to send our military around the world. In doing so, he conveniently avoids the argument that nazism, communism, if allowed to spread, would kill more people than putting a stop to it would. They ignore the idea that if America took on an isolationist attitude, that every disparate country would be gunning for us on our soil, and with an isolationist attitude, every one of them would have nukes. Bye-bye America.
This faction of libertarianism accepts the leftist argument that Bush acted unilaterally in Iraq, that the Korean war and Vietnam war should not have happened, and in taking that view, never try to envision what the world would be like if we did not intervene. Arguments about how each war was fought will continue forever, and all conservatives fall on inconsequential, yet different, sides of the argument. But the Paul libertarians avoid that argument by insisting the whole path to war unconstitutional because of such and such. The bottom line is, without America, there is no peace, and there is no stability. Does that mean that Levin agrees with Obama? Of course not, and that is the heretical jump that many of Paul's followers take. Levin has explained over and over that he thinks Obama's actions are bad policy, but, since he has committed resources, it is the legislators job to defund it. If they do not want to defund it, it goes on. Levin disagreed with points in the War Powers resolution of 1973, as did Woods, so why promote the idea that Levin is not scholarly on the constitution itself? Cheap shots, that's what Wood's relies on, just to egg on the argument.
The spread of communism throughout the world was a reason to involve our nation in Korea and Vietnam, yet, to take Paul's view, we should allow brutal dictatorships to globally beat the living piss out of or kill every last spirited human on the earth, just so long as they do not attack the US. Isolationism is a very sick mentality.
The Ron Paul argument that we must declare war on another country unless there is an imminent threat to our nation falls completely apart when discussing the threats posed to America by radical Islam. The unconstitutionality of the War on Terror was a key element in his campaign during the 2008 presidential primaries, attacking "neo-con" G.W. Bush for using the terminology, "all is on the table for Iran," and "if you aren't with us, you are against us." Obviously, it is not possible to declare war on a country when it was not a country that attacked us, but an ideology. What Woods and Paul would have had us do is absorb (Obama's word) more attacks on our nation because we breached our constitution way back when according to them, and we deserve it.
Now, the only difference between that thought process and that of the radical left in this country, is that the Pauls and the Woods use their interpretation of the Constitution to risk attacks on America and the left uses emotion to the same end.
Here is the real danger. Some day, if more people who worship Ron Paul get elected within the Republican Party, and more people like Nancy Pelosi get elected within the Democrat party, we will one day face a big problem. Let's say congress refuses to declare war when the President needs to, as commander in chief, kill the next Osama Bin Laden by bombing the hell out of a small town in say, Uzbekistan. According to their logic, the Pauls of the nation feel as though they have followed the founders intent (but they haven't) on refusing to declare war, as would the Pelosi wing, and the following month, the Uzbekki terrorist successfully pulls off a coordinated dirty bomb attack in every one of our major cities.
The Ron Paul Libertarians are the right's left when it comes to foreign policy.
If shallow thinking were money, the author of this essay would be rich.
If shallow thinking were money, the author of this essay would be rich.
Couldn't be better said. Essays like this in the public realm are truly depressing.
Conservatism, Ms Jen Dear, is neither Libertarianism nor Leftism.
I do think sometimes verbal buffoonery like this is intentionally put out there to confuse the principles. Kind of like Barack Obama.
Johnny Suntrade
Mark Levin Ping!
But there cannot be peace without war. It goes against human nature.
Many people believe diplomacy will work. I don’t. I also believe we should have a real “compelling interest” – a darned good reason – for making war. I don’t see one in the case with Libya. At least it isn’t being called a “peace keeping mission” where there’s no peace to keep.
I favored Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq was clearly in violation of the ceasefire agreement. I was not in favor of what it turned into. I felt we should just do another Operation Desert Storm; go in, destroy as much of the Iraqi forces as possible and get out. Instead we bypassed large Iraqi formations and didn’t even bother to disarm them. We are trying to remake Iraq in our image. I wonder how long it will last.
I also believe we should declare war if not under attack, if we are attacked it wouldn’t take long to make the declaration. The last time we declared war was in 1941. It seems some laws only kick in with a declaration. How many people were even arrested for sedition since then? Would Code Pink be allowed to give aid and comfort to the enemy in WW I or II?
The first two significant military adventures under the Constitution, the Quasi-War with France under Adams, and the attacks on the Barbary Pirates under Jefferson, were both fought without a formal declaration of war by Congress.
Where do you read that I defend the Libyan attack?
The People of the United States have war powers, and we have delegated them according to a written Constitution.
When the People of the US make war, we act through our representatives in Congress assembled.
The POTUS, in our constitutional system, does not embody the General Will nor does he exercise dictatorial authority.
In 1941, FDR was "authorized and directed to make war against the Empire of Japan.."
That was the last time the People acted to make war.
In subsequent conflicts, of course, the results speak for themselves.
Well, read it again, the entire article puts Paulistas and their leftist views on foreign policy under a light.
go away, you are annoying, of course no one supports al quaeda, did you read the damn essay, or just short-shift?
When did Mark Levin ever say he supported risking our soldier’s lives for al queda? You either didn’t listen to what he said or you do not understand what he said. He never said he supported this!
The issue between Levin and this professor isn't whether a "formal" declaration of war is required but whether, under the Constitution, the President can initiate non-defensive military action without prior approval of Congress
Levin says yes but the two examples you cite undermine Levin's argument because, in both cases, Congress passed several statutes that authorized those naval actions
and, in the case of the Barbary prirates, Hamilton (the leading advocate of a strong President) acknowledged efore Congress that the President could not initiate military action but distinguished the Barbary case on the grounds that the pirates had already declared war on the US so there was no need to have Congress initiate war...the US was already in a state of war
That is obviously not the situation here with Libya...yet Levin is contending that Obama is acting within the bounds of the Constitution by initiating what is clearly not defensive military action.
I like Mark and think he's always good on the Constitution...but he's way wrong on this one
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.