Looking forward, of course, to some further discussion on this with you in the future!

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.

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 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.

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.

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!