Sabre rattling about Iran’s nuclear program was once again everywhere in the corporate media last week. Despite sounding strangely familiar it was Obama’s administration this time, perceived by many as an ‘anti-war’ candidate before the general election last year.
So much for that.
Many have analyzed the Iran nuclear scenario and can find no motive other than defense for their nuclear weapons program, fictional or actual. When one tries to imagine how Iran would benefit from nuking another nation, even Israel, there simply isn’t anything that emerges. Sure, there is the usual trotting out of that VERY loosely translated ‘wipe Israel off the map’ speech and claims that the Mullahs are so psycho that they would nuke at the first opportunity, but both of these arguments lack logic and historical precedent.
As has been stated by many a rational observer, one only has to examine DC’s policies towards the otherwise Iran-esque Islamic nuclear power, Pakistan (our…friend…) to see that the Iranians stand to enjoy quite a victory if they can develop a nuke, without ever even arming it.
So why does the Federal government continue to ignore the sovereignty of other states like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan? One only has to look at domestic policy for a consistent track record. Federal disregard for sovereign states shouldn’t surprise, considering the Federal policies that have trampled upon the sovereignty of the United States for decades.
For those that oppose adventurism and empire building, the 10th amendment movement is a natural fit. If one opposes the invasion of Iraq, they should find equivalent intellectual motivation to oppose, say, the recent attack on Oklahoma’s sovereignty. The strongman routine suddenly looks a little different in this context- when DC’s bullying is shown to be not only directed at nations around the world, but also at our United States.
I think we need to be more careful about distinguishing between their clearly desired policy and that of the Constitutional capability.
Why would Washington warn us about foreign entanglements if we had not the constitutional capability to enter into them?
I thank you very much for your time in responding to my questions and post here, I cannot ask for a response to this last question, for I feel I have already asked too much of you in this regard. So I will leave it at this, and leave you with the knowledge that I agree almost entirely. I pray we are not pushing this too far.
Thanks again for the reply, Monorprise. The founders and ratifiers warned of many things that aren’t constitutionally-delegated powers. In many of the debates for ratification, they warned of abuses of the commerce and general Welfare clauses, for example. That doesn’t mean what they warned against is somehow authorized, though.
Looking forward, of course, to some further discussion on this with you in the future!
Michael Boldin while I am inclined to agree with the point that the Constitution matters a great deal and concede the point that it is perhaps some of our “foreign policy” may be conducted in a way that is “inconsistent with the Federal Constitutions” procedural conduct.
I do not see anywhere in the constitution that it requires we respect and recognize the sovereignty of all other nations. Such a restriction would be untenable given their foreign and thus generally unknown or disagreeable nature.
Who is to define what is and is not a nation? Who is to settle land and territorial disputes? all of theses definitions are changing and specific policy matters which cannot be defined in a fix and thus constitutional sense outside our relem of control.
If you ask me, yes we should respect and recognize the sovereignty of most other nations, but not all, because frequently pot dictators and whatever else hooligans will clam illegitimately sovereignty, and we will have to determine whether or not they really are sovereignty.
That’s a policy and judgment call which given our recognition of absolute monarchies in the past is clearly not based upon whether or not their government reflects our republican values or anything else for that matter. Yet none the less that is a judgment call upon which the respecting of foreign sovereignty is entirely depended upon the recognition of sovereignty.
I do not know exactly what aspect of our foreign policy your calming is inconsistent with our constitution here. Is it simply the procedure, such as the matter of not “formally declare war before engaging in war”?
If so then there is no dispute among us, and I simply think it would be wise if we stick to and point out exactly those details, pointing out how the same policy should be done procedurally in following the constitution internally.
If that is not the case then I can see no where in the constitution where the Federal government’s is required to hold any sort of policy with regard to foreign nations. If there is such a part, please site it and make that argument.
Monorprise, you know full well that the Constitution was not an instrument filled with “requirements” of certain behavior or policy on the federal government. While there are certain procedures it must follow, the primary purpose of the Constitution was not procedural. Instead, it was a strict set of limitations on what the federal government can do. A full understanding of these limits requires study of the intent of the framers themselves, the meaning of the words at the time, and the general understanding of the ratifiers.
Most of what this government does – both in domestic and foreign policy – is outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.
Where in the Constitution are they authorized to force you into a health care plan? They’re not. Where are they authorized to create a national ID card? They are not.
As far as foreign policy, “interventionism” is something the founders and ratifiers were vehemently opposed to. Their writings and their positions make this quite clear. And – absent any specific authorization in the Constitution, most of what these people in DC do, is not authorized, and in fact, was opposed by the founders and ratifiers.
“Interventionism” – meddling in the affairs of other nations, basing troops around the world instead of protecting our own borders, taking part of your income under threat of imprisonment to fund and prop up dictators and governments of all kinds, using the national guard (the militia) for any reason but the 3 authorized in the Constitution……..that’s just a beginning.
Without going to a full dissertation on the debates and discussions pertaining to foreign policy at the time of the ratification, I’ll leave you with the words of Thomas Jefferson, who summed up the goal and intent of the entire founding generation quite well:
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.”
I think we should to leave foreign policy remarks out off this website.
Although I agree it would be nice if the Federal government would spend more of it’s attention to the rest of the world, and less time bothering us and our states here at home.
It would be nice if we elected congressmen and presidents almost exclusively on their judgment with regard to foreign policy and not have to divide that vote with all other domestic matters.
We shouldn’t have to sacrifice/compromise one for the other!
With all due respect, Monorprise, I think it’s absurd to ask that we “leave foreign policy remarks” from this website. The founders were , in point and fact, extremely concerned about this very issue – foreign policy, and thus, we’ll continue with their message.
They spent considerable time discussing and writing about a proper foreign policy for this country. They lived under a tyranny – an interventionist government at home and abroad. The limits that the Constitution places on the federal government’s foreign policy “powers” (there aren’t really many) reflect this serious objection the founders had to much of what the US government does abroad today.
Bryce makes a fantastic point – comparing the US federal government’s total and complete disrespect for the sovereignty of foreign states with that same disrespect it has for these United States.
Following the Constitution doesn’t mean just opposing national health care, or gun regulations – it means much, much more.