In that case, of an out of control executive, who is a ‘law unto himself’,then congress needs to not just refuse to declare war, they need to offer no appropriations bill for a ‘police action’ or whatever color of law said “super” President is doing. Or impeach him. That is a ‘check and balance’. My friend, you’re arguing here for a man like the King George of Britain from whom we separated. Unwisely, I might add. With such unchecked power, what if he finds you & yours to be ‘domestic terrorists’. Or maybe not him, but his successor who will likely inherit his ‘aggravated powers’.

Again, Jefferson:

“In questions of power, LET US HEAR NO MORE OF TRUST IN MEN, but rather bind them down with the chains of the Constitution.”

Only God Almighty, in heaven posseses unchecked, unbalanced power. Because He is perfectly good, no problem.

On earth, we limit it, amongst fallen, sinful men.

This is the distilled teaching of the Founders, the laws of Nations, Just War Doctrine & Natural & Biblical Law.

Warmonger empire builder doctrine, replacing Just War Doctrine is the last gasp of a dying empire –

May I humbly suggest you spend the next year reading up on http://www.LewRockwell.com or http://www.IOTConline.com for Libetarian Constitutional thought, by men who have studied the Founders Worldview in depth.

If the Founders were here, they’d read Lewrockwell – heck, they’d blog there !

The founding fathers original intent is being ignored or stretched here, to make these arguments. When we examine the text of the Constitution, we must see it in light of the Principles that guided it’s formation. I don’t mean ignore the text, far from it, but understand that in light of the plain words of the Declaration of Independence, Jeff’s arugments fall flat. He’s arguing that the President is some superhuman ‘King of the World’ to make war, using extra-Constutional powers.

The founders, in the Declaration of Idependence, refrence 2 standards this discussion has yet to cover: “….the laws of Nature & of Nature’s God…” those are the powers that are above the Constitution, that give it’s legitimacy.

You see, they were Christian & Natural Law thinkers, not just secularist like is common today.

To help ‘uncode’ their words I quoted, they mean: “…the Laws of Nature…(Natural Law)….the Laws of Nature’s God….(Biblical Law…gasp). Those were their two witnesses. They also were likely thinking of the “law of Nations” (law standards like the Common Law, which all civilized nations observed, generally).

If we have a soley ‘horizontal view of Law & governance’, the Jeff is quite correct, law can be somewhat arbitrary, the Presdient, being that he commands the largest military of the worlds major power (for now, 26 world empires have come & gone, remember).

But, if we have a horizontal (among men), AND a veritcal (from God to men) origin of our Constitution, then everything changes. That is why we MUST read the text of the Constitution with Original Intent, the Declaration & the worldview of the Founders in mind.

That worldview also included Just War doctrine, which was part of the “Law of Nations” that Christendom had developed over the last two millenia – and that America once subscribed to. It was what animated Jefferson & Washington to remark:

“America is the friend of Liberty everywhere, but the guarantor of ours alone” and “Friendly relations with all (nations), entangling alliances with none.”

I think we’ve seen the massive growth of Civil government power, as we’ve lost the faith in God that once animated our people. This is why spiritual revival must preceed or accompany politcal revival.

Not only did Jefferson warn that we must ‘bind men down with the chains of the constitution’ (because they were not to be trusted with too much power).

John Adams warned that the Constitution, alone, without a spiritual & moral foundation, was inadequate:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Isn’t this really our problem ? With out ‘spiritual eyes’ like the men who wrote it, we simply mis-interpret them ?

Thanks if you’ve read thus far, I didn’t mean to write this much, but it seemed germaine to the issue at hand.

Michael, you’ve a fine Constitutional mind (I know, I teach a class on it…you’re a ‘star student’, no doubt), but the benefit of the extensive teaching I’ve received from the most learned men on the origins of our nation in Constituional, Common & Biblical Law heritage, has in our age been denied to many.

Secularism has ruled the day. And it is failing, big time. It must. It is wholly inadequate to ‘hold our nation together’, which is one reason we’re blowing apart, even blowing up half the world in an ungodly fear that seizes upon all who fight the God in heaven & his son Jesus Christ.

Until we repent, and in the same humble spirit our Founding Fathers (53 of the 55 signers were serious Christians; some 20 + had divinity degrees), labored, we will go astray.

I do applaud your efforts here. I feel certain that God’s hand of Providence and a healthy fear of encroaching tyranny is raising up men all over the land (just go to http://www.LewRockwell.com for a great gathering of them.) in defiance of that tyranny.

BTW, I learned much of this from the course, Institute on the Constitution: A Study the Worldview of the Founders & Christianity, at http://www.IOTConline.com great resources there !

David Alan

Michael, thanks for your clarity on this matter & the great website overall, bravo !

I think this controversy takes us to the point of determining the ‘original intent’ of the Founders. The question at hand is, are the powers express or implied ?

If you see the Constitution as an Implied Powers document, you get Jeff’s position that assumes the President to have those powers, simply because the text doesn’t deny them to him.

Conversely, if you see the Constitution as an Express Powers Document, he has not the power if not specifically given to him.

I think, to me, with the clear wording of the 9th & 10th Amendment, the verdict is that the Constution is a ‘Express powers’ Document. The Founders (save Hamiliton) took a dim view of arbitrary power, and would not have approved such.

With the view Jeff subscribes to, George Washington was a fool for refusing to be crowned ‘King of America’, istead of retiring.

It’s a side note, but did anyone notice that funding for a Navy had no limitation, but any land forces funding only lasts 2 years, so distrustful were the Founding Fathers about a ‘standing Army’, which they called the ‘bane of Liberty’.

David Alan

After a few too many decades of government schooling, it appears that very few people actually know this, or even understand this when it's presented to them.

What's more, the law that Ron Paul was writing about was not concerning the entire concept of tribunals. He was talking about one specific piece of legislation. You're mixing up apples and oranges.

Lastly, the constitution speaks of the People. This is meant as "We the People of The United States of America". This means, all rights protected by the constitution for the people are the People of The United States of America, and not the People of Afghanistan or anywhere else… even Canada.

This, in closing is what makes your view imperial in my mind. You contend the the People of the United States of America consist of all people of the planet Earth whom might ever have a dealing with the United States. I disagree.

Learning is not always an easy thing, and I once had a professor who said that what you learn will be better retained the more you have to struggle to learn it. So, don't be so frustrated. Today, you learned something. It challenges some core of your present belief, but that is a good thing.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne27.html

"The important point is that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to 'people.' It applies to the federal government. The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and such). The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do."