The Lessons of 9/11

LewRockwell.com ^ | 22 April 04 | Rep. Ron Paul

[mrsmith]

It's going to you telling me where the Constittuion authorizes that spending.

[mrsmith]

""You've been asked by more than one poster to explain how the Constitution authorizes foreign aid. It would be much appreciated if you'd answer that question, if you have an answer.
32 posted on 04/24/2004 1:49:49 PM EDT by inquest ""

The Constitution authorizes foreign aid under the war power.

How could I have possibly given a more direct, straightforward and honest response to that request?

[inquest]

The spending on the salaries, lodging, etc. is a function of the explicit power to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, and to do what's necessary and proper to enable them to do what such officers do.

[inquest]

A more honest answer would note that the war power only authorizes foreign aid in particular circumstances - that it's not a general authorization of foreign aid.

[mrsmith]

"to do what's necessary and proper to enable them to do what such officers do. "

It's neccessary and proper that these officers negotiate the most favorable treaties they can?
And finally...
What is the Constitutional limit on the money Congress can spend on these officers they send to negotiate treaties?

Thus ends my socratic part. Of course it's only fair that I then answer some leading questions if you wish.

[inquest]

What is the Constitutional limit on the money Congress can spend on these officers they send to negotiate treaties?

There's no dollar limit. The only limit would be what the money's being spent on. As far as I can see, the spending power would be limited only to maintaining the salary and expenses of the officer. Anything beyond that is jumping the gun treaty-wise. In other words, it would be implementing a treaty before it's signed and ratified.

Gotta go for the night. I'll take this up tomorrow. Good night to you.

[mrsmith]

I said in that same reply that there was also another authorization.

It would be a very dull person that thought I instead meant all foreign aid was authorized only under the war power.

Of course the war power could cover the Venezuela aid as shown by the wars of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson: Congress approved and paid for it.

But then I already know you reject the Founding Fathers' understanding of the war power.

[mrsmith]

Night. (and you skipped a question)

[inquest]

Of course the war power could cover the Venezuela aid as shown by the wars of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson: Congress approved and paid for it.

How could the war power cover a foreign aid appropriation that occurred outside of a war, and that by all indications had nothing to do with a war?

[inquest]

Yes to the other question.

[mrsmith]

Purely hypothetically, it could have been a bribe- perhaps for denial of landing rights to British ships.
Though we have no reason to think it wasn't done to influence treatment of US trade, it isn't ever easy to differentiate between war and diplomacy.

Take the case of President Jefferson (and of course congress) supplying aid to the Haitian rebels- was it war against the French, or a diplomatic effort to acquire Louisiana by treaty? It was very warlike, but it's effect and it's intent were diplomatic.

[inquest]

Purely hypothetically, it could have been a bribe- perhaps for denial of landing rights to British ships.

But as I said, we weren't at war at the time. Logically, the exercise of war powers wouldn't come into play until a state of war is declared.

[mrsmith]

An act of war is not an act of war because it wasn't "declared"?

What, it's "funsies"?

[inquest]

An act of war is not an act of war because it wasn't "declared"?

An act of war is not constitutional if it isn't declared. At least you haven't shown how it is.

[mrsmith]

An act of war is a declaration of war.

The Constitution was not an attempt to exempt us from logic, the laws of nations, or the laws of war.

[inquest]

An act of war is a declaration of war.

No, a declaration of war makes it clear that we're at war. As you yourself acknowledged, it wasn't clear at all why we rendered the aid to Venezuela.

[mrsmith]

An act of war makes it clear that we are at war to the nation that is on the receiving end.

The Constitution was not an attempt to exempt us from logic, the laws of nations, or the laws of war.

[inquest]

An act of war makes it clear that we are at war to the nation that is on the receiving end.

So you're telling me that at the moment we approved the aid to Venezuela, it became "clear" that we were at war with Britain?

The Constitution was not an attempt to exempt us from logic, the laws of nations, or the laws of war.

Thanks, I saw your question-begging statement the first time you posted it.

[mrsmith]

So you're telling me that at the moment we approved the aid to Venezuela if on the condition that they not allow landing rights to British ships, it became "clear" that we were at war with Britain?
(There, I know you want to think whatever you want, but you should put limits on how hard you try to fool yourself.)

So, you don't think Britain would consider that an act of war. They were very particular at the time about their navy. It was the basis of all their prosperity.

The Constitution was not an attempt to exempt us from logic, the laws of nations, or the laws of war.

[inquest]

So, were we at war at that point or weren't we? If we were, why did we feel the need to declare that fact a second time? Apparently it wasn't very "clear" to some people.