printModern statutes like the War Powers Resolution, the Iraq Resolution, and the Use of Force Act do not displace the constitutional text and the framers’ intent. But even if the Constitution approved of Barack Obama’s subterfuge in the matter of war powers—the natural law does not. Because it is rational and rooted in the very nature of man, natural justice is immutably true; it is the ultimate guide to what is right or wrong. And it certainly informs the work of historian Tom Woods and the mission of the King Dude (aka Mike Church).
Woods and Church (against the Imperial Presidency) are sparring with talker Mark Levin (in support of it). Woods has repeatedly deferred to the work of Louis Fisher, senior specialist in separation of powers at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, whose work I too galvanized during the Bush era war-powers abuse, in “UNNATURAL LAWLESSNESS” (here).
Tom Woods, The King Dude, and Fisher follow the framers and are thus formidable forces for liberty. To the debate between Messrs. Woods and Levin, I would add—and emphasize—only this point:
To the extent that the Constitution comports with natural law, to that extent it is good. To the extent that it does not jibe with natural justice, to that extent the Constitution is flawed. Even if the Constitution could be shown to support the many naturally illicit military forays conducted by successive American governments—it does not mean that these wars are/were just; only that they are/were legal. Contra classical natural law theory, legal positivism equates justice with the law of the state. However, while it may no longer guide most Americans, natural law must never cease to inform libertarians.
How would blog readers describe natural law as it applies here?
I have read some of Dr. Woods’s work, and I’ve listened to Mr. Levine. When Mr. L indeed sticks to the original intent of the Constitution, he is of course spot-on. How is it, though, that he, as with many “Constitutionalists”, can get around something so basic as this? I realize that some word usage has changed a bit since the 18th c., but I believe the document and the record are abundantly clear. Dr. Woods wins hands down! Why is there even an argument here?
Absolutely. I was watching Eric Garris make that point (in different words) on RT the other day; meanwhile, the two Arabs on the show were all FOR the Empire killing Arabs, in the name of protecting them. Go figure.
From the little bit of the back and forth between Levin and Woods I’ve picked up; Levin’s argument has boiled down to ‘the Framers made the President the Commander in Chief of the military so he can pretty much do what he wants with the military and if Congress doesn’t like it they can defund it’. He’s basically trying to minimize what “declare war” means. He strains at the point that the founders didn’t want Congress running wars (true) but jumps from that to dismissing the declaration of war as more or less irrelevant. I think this is another instance where only a lawyer could take something that’s obvious and simple and twist it into something complicated. The founders gave the Congress the power to START wars (i.e. declare war) and then once the war was started it was up to the President to oversee military operations (as it would be ridiculous to expect the Congress to debate every strategic move in a conflict).
CONSTITUTION x ORWELL = GODZILLA
As Ben Franklin put it: “I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other”
To which Walt ‘Pogo’ Kelley added: “We have met the enemy and it is us”
Please take a few minutes to read the following commentary on JWR:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0311/stratfor033011.php3
While reading it, please keep in mind DEMOCRACY vs CONSTITUTIONALLY-LIMITED REPUBLIC vs MONARCHY vs SOCIALIST / COMMUNIST vs THEOCRACY vs ANARCHY.
Man is both a rational being and an emotional being. How do you view government’s role in human affairs?
Machiavelli explained his view in “THE PRINCE” and the Founders (U.S.) explained their views in “THE FEDERALIST PAPERS”. “OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY”, “THE ART OF WAR”, and “THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE” other substantial writings present reasons, histories, and examples of man’s interactions and their outcomes.
Perhaps someone more informed, more educated, and more intelligent than I could embark upon the task of writing a history, analysis, and summation of man’s efforts to arrive at a form of government that may never be achieved…and propose the IDEAL form.
I believe War will always be there regardless of how it is “named”.
I was going to make suggestions on how to improve on the Constitution, like explicitly allowing state nullification, secession, and jury nullification, but that still assumes government agents will faithfully follow the language and that the states and the people would hold them to it. No such luck.
The First Amendment is a good example. It states, “Congress shall make no law…” What does Congress do? It makes laws (McCain-Feingold) it has no authority to make or enforce. The president signs it and the Supreme Court sits on its hands. Checks and balances? Never heard of ’em.
The Constitution, like any legally binding document, is only as good as the people subject to its provisions and for the people whose rights it is intended to preserve.
The results speak for themselves.
I am glad to see someone mention natural law in all of this. For those of us who follow the natural law tradition of Aristotle, Cicero, St. Thomas Aquinas, Francisco de Vitoria, and Hugo Grotius, the utter disregard given this principle that informed the Founding Fathers is very sad and damaging to our republic. It is sad that Dr. Woods and Ilana Mercer are not given more attention, and instead the assorted neocon squawkers get all the air time and mislead millions.
“Tom Woods: “Find Me ONE Federalist who said President would have the Power to Launch Non-Defensive Wars.” Is the key to the whole argument/discussion. One could even ask “Where does the constitution say that Congress has the power to launch Non-defensive wars?” When one reads the document it states that Congress has the power to create a army but the specific requirements of the army is to A: Put down insurrection and B: Protect the border from invasion. Without an army one can not attack another nation outside the border. I know, I’m outside the line again; however, the clear intent of the US Constitution is a reflection of ‘Natural Law’ in that it in no way implies a justification for aggression.
Thank you SO much for posting that link to Jewish World Review and George Friedman’s outstanding analysis of the Constitutional basis for a Congressional Declaration of War – and the slippery slope we’ve been on since the Korean War, when Congress did NOT declare war, but Truman took the matter to the UN, and the UN Security Council backed the intended “police action.”
A great reminder, too, of our recent history and an important re-examination of this critical, requisite Constitutional requirement & its subsequent authority.
I’m only going to add one short comment on the Declaration of War per our Constitution. The War Declaration follows a logical pattern established by the founders. In effect Congress authorizes, the Executive executes.