If, for example, you take the attacks in grenada and iraq as isolated, raw acts of aggression against the us or us interests, you certainly have a case! But the are not. And anyone who argues such is either ignorant of the history or twisting it.

Grenada, is a much more complex situation, and I would say that it requires far more space than is available here. In fact, I do believe there are convincing arguments on your side for this – but don't necessarily agree. But Iraq – this is simple.

In 1991, the US government sent its military to wage a war against Iraq – without congressional declaration of war. (none has been constitutionally-made since WWII). Thus, because of this, the planes (which were enforcing UN mandates), throughout the 1990s, and being shot at by Iraq anti-aircraft batteries – shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Had Congress done its duty and taken responsibility for its actions, then yes, it would be solely a policy discussion. And – if those very planes were flying in US territory – and were attacked by Iraq, then you'd also have a case.

Unless, of course, you see UN mandates or treaties as superceding the US Constitution. If so, you're really going to have to start arguing in favor of Cap and Trade when there's an international agreement requiring congress to forget the limitations of the constitution.

The line is pretty clear on what can and cannot be done militarily.

1. The president has the constitutional authority, without going to congress, to repel an invasion or an imminent attack on the USA. (and yes, there's certainly a question about Jefferson's action in the quasi-war too!). In our 2+ centuries, this has happened barely a handful of times.

2. The burden of proof on repelling an imminent attack lies with the president.

3. Any other acts of war – and "war" must be defined in the understanding of the time of the founding – which is military combat – must have a declaration of war from Congress. And, as noted previously, this doesn't mean that exact language. All this means is that congress directs the executive to engage in conflict with a specific nation – or group, for that matter – and doesn't just authorize him to choose whether or not that will happen.

And that's that.

I don't want to muddy the waters Michael Boldin, but we must acknowledge the very strong parallels.
If we are to assume what Thomas Jefferson did was Constitutional(not entirely a fair assumption), then exactly where is that "fine line" which separates that act from the acts of Reagan and Bush 43 in Grenada and Iraq respectively?

Is it the act of congress to punish piracy?
Is it the defense of the United States?

There are many ways to look at and define what happen, and exacting details of the position of the line is necessary.

If I did in fact make some "incorrect assumptions" which I admit is no doubt possible, it would be helpful to me to define and justify the exact differences between theses assumptions.

I very much do not wish to make this request of you, as having a clear cut Constitution is so important for so many different reasons. I do not wish to place you in to a position in which ambiguity might be acknowledged or dictatorial and arbitrary judgment might be imposed.

There must be a line that divides those acts, it must exist, and it must be clear and justified, if we are to delve into the realm of debating their constitutional merits.

This will be my last post on this matter for I cannot ask anymore of your time.

Your position and feedback is always welcome, but you're basing your statements off a faulty assumption – that because the federal government IS authorized to do a particular thing that there's no Constitutional limitations on how they should handle them. As far as foreign policy – or anything else that's been delegated to the federal government, that is an incorrect assumption.

The words of the founders advising a course of action were not only personal beliefs – they created a constitution to ensure that the kind of foreign policy meddling that you're referring to, would be more than unlikely. Many of the debates and discussions on war policy covered this very issue – and the consensus, from even the greatest proponents of centralization was that the Constitution was set up in such a way to prevent what they considered "meddling" in the affairs of other countries.

How did they do that? They left the decision of war in the hands of the people's and the states' representatives. And, even after that, there is much that is still in the hands of congress – i.e. treatment of prisoners outside the conflict theater, such as guantanamo.

And, on top of it, when we have a federal government that insists on ignoring the process of declaring war or committing troops to OFFENSIVE actions, then everything done stemming from such a commitment is also due heavy constitutional scrutiny.

Thomas Jefferson made this quite clear in the "quasi-war" with the Barbary pirates when he was president. He used troops overseas without congressional war declaration, but made it clear that his actions would be strictly limited to acts of defense to fend of attacks on American ships/interests. Any offensive action, Jefferson made clear, would require a Congressional declaration.

Same goes for today. The president is authorized to use force to fend off an invasion or an impending attack and nothing more, without a congressional declaration of war.

Articles about health care as it regard to the Federal government is clearly a 10th amendment issue as the Federal government has no right to be involved in health-care.

Articles about the Federal Reserve correspondingly have an argument to say that the Federal government has no right to establish such a bank and cede such congressional authority to a 3rd party organization.

Federal Government regulation in general to the extent that i have read articles on this forum are also beyond the scope of the Federal Constitution and thus also clearly a 10th amendment issue.

I Respect that such policy position are simply not the Provence of the Federal Government, But the matters of war and peace clearly are one of the very few provinces of the Federal government provided that they are property declared.

You may be correct that I am "taking this vigilant stance against anything anti-war much too far" and if that is the case I am sincerely sorry, it is your forum and your website, and you have the right to set the bounds. I do not pretend to set them for you; I simply suggest that perhaps we should be a bit more “restrained” to the limited scope of the topic at hand in regard to matters that are clearly on the Federal Governments correct side of the line, as defined clearly by the U.S. Constitution and empathized by the 10th amendment.

I say this because the nature of our political collation must necessarily include a large diversity on such matters. You are correct in that man of the articles could be interpreted as to be as against such a policy implemented on the domestic level as they are against such a policy on the federal level. But in such a case the argument for not having the federal government do something can in fact be very similar if not nearly identical to the argument for not having the State or local government do the same thing.

You don’t hear my “vigilant stance” against such articles being beyond the pail as they can in fact be simply applied to the federal governments involvement in such an issue.
I would very much prefer to assume that is in fact the intention of the article then write a divisive commit such as this one.

Once again your right in that stating an opinion is by no means a crime, and if YOU determinant it on our site it is perfectly with in the scope of your topic.
But my effort here was not to lay down any sort of law, but to attempt to argue for some at least limited contextual relevance.

You are correct that many of our founders were in fact against such a foreign policy, but being against something in printable does not mean that they wrote a constitution as to prohibit it. As you know many of theses same people later served in politics themselves, so of course they had their own policies to carry out and advocate for while in office.

That does not make the contrary opinions beyond the scope of the Constitution they wrote, nor did the author attempt to argue such in most cases here. Still the political policy argument could be taken by political operatives as grounds to reject the Constitutional one as also a political policy argument.

That is my chief concern here, I can’t defend this as fair play. War is not peace, but What Obama said with regard to the need for war to retain and restore peace at times is the reason for the existence of the Federal government, and its corresponding constitutional power to wage war. It is called defense as you yourself must recognize as being a necessity in a world where you can no more guarantee the honest and fair treatment of others then you can guarantee any sort of control/limitation on their actions against you with anything but your own force.

Tell me how is it that we can argue for a Constitutional union when we also seem to put down the very core(defense) propose of that union?

Yes I strongly desire a Constitutional union in all of its aspects, but that does in my mind requiring that we acknowledge the few constitutional things which it can do in addition to insisting upon the Constitutional limitations against theses things which it cant.

The Constitution is not the hammer to enforce our desired policy it is the chains that keeps them out of our domains to exclusively operate by their own choices in their own domain.

Its up to you what your website covers, I just wanted to voice my concern, in hopes that we ourselves never become drunk with the power of interpretation as the court has become. That we respect the domain of authority the chain permits while working to keep it with in that domain. (it’s a 2 way street)

You are perhaps correct MichaelBoldin that my concerns are unwarranted here.

But, I never see you making this kind of comment on those articles – "we should keep our discussion of health care issues to the simple constitutional requirement that government not get involved and nothing more." Of all the commentary on this site, a small portion touches on foreign policy – yet almost every time we see this kind of comment from you.

As you already know, there are volumes of commentary and quotes from the founders in opposition to the kind of foreign policy we have today. If we ran a piece from James Madison or Thomas Jefferson with the same kind of message would you say – Jim, Tom, you really need to tone down the rhetoric?

It's important to discuss not only the dry constitutional requirements, but also the ramifications of actions. You'll continue to see more of this here – as we've done for nearly 3 years.

All that being said, I commend you on your desire to see the government follow the constitution in all circumstances.

But, I never see you making this kind of comment on those articles – "we should keep our discussion of health care issues to the simple constitutional requirement that government not get involved and nothing more." Of all the commentary on this site, a small portion touches on foreign policy – yet almost every time we see this kind of comment from you.

As you already know, there are volumes of commentary and quotes from the founders in opposition to the kind of foreign policy we have today. If we ran a piece from James Madison or Thomas Jefferson with the same kind of message would you say – Jim, Tom, you really need to tone down the rhetoric?

It's important to discuss not only the dry constitutional requirements, but also the ramifications of actions. You'll continue to see more of this here – as we've done for nearly 3 years.

All that being said, I commend you on your desire to see the government follow the constitution in all circumstances.

Once again, as a matter of the 10th amendment we should avoid ever going into foreign policy unless your trying to make a procedural point as it pertains to the limitations of our constitution our concern must be limited.

No offense, but we need to keep ourselves focused upon the topic at hand. Remember is not what they do is where they do it.

If we are to simply ask that they do it in the proper place and not the improper place then we must be careful in asking for restrictions on what they do in the same proper place. Foreign policy is indisputably a matter of the federal government. I can understand when you simply demand no war with out a congressional deceleration, thats a procedural distinction which is a matter between the 3 branches of the federal government.

But to tie down their hands with "OUR perspective" on the merits of any spesfic policy which IS being implemented by the appropriate government as defined by the constitution is clearly beyond the scope of the 10th amendment question.

Yes we all have our own views, I for one am generally pro-war, not anti-war, i never had any problem with "beating up" 3rd world counties when it suits our interest.
I dont see how that perspective and political opinion is relevant here, as I agree with you on who alone has the right to wage such wars, and who has the right to do all other things, as being defined in our Constitution.