The Constitution is the set of rules that governs the federal government. It’s authorized to exercise only those powers delegated to it, and nothing more.
Obama would have us believe that the decision on whether or not to start a war rests on his decision alone. Rob Natelson, one of the nation’s leading experts on the framing and adoption of the Constitution, shows us in his new article that this view is little more than a crock.
Sadly, though, Obama and the elite left aren’t the only ones that hold this view. Many prominent conservatives do too…and they’ve been advocating such a position for a long, long time.
Mark Levin is possibly the best example. A champion of limited government for many conservatives, he has betrayed the constitution for many years by pushing the Obama line…that this country should go to war not on the decision of the People of the country (through their representative) but instead, on the decision of one person alone.
King George would’ve agreed. And Joe Stalin would’ve jumped for joy at his triumph over limited, constitutional government.
Tom Woods, on the other hand, has been a bulwark in defense of the constitution and liberty. Last week, he put together a brief overview of the constitution and war powers, rebuking Levin. READ IT HERE
Levin was none too happy about it, and slammed Woods publicly as being an “activist who demands fidelity not to the Constitution but his ideology.”
Levin continued by saying, “His misuse of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, and other quotes here and there is politically expedient. There’s nothing scholarly about it.”
What’s Levin saying? There’s nothing scholarly about the position that the founders created a system where the president could use the military for purely defensive purposes without permission, but could engage in offensive hostilities only after approval from Congress.
Enter Rob Natelson.
Rob is in the “nearly unmatched” category of this country’s constitutional scholars. For 23 years, he served as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, where he taught Constitutional Law and became a recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution. He pioneered the use of source material, such as important Founding-Era law books, overlooked by other writers, and he has been the first to uncover key facts about some of the most significant parts of the Constitution.
A top conservative scholar, Rob has written for some of the most prestigious academic publishers, including Cambridge University Press, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and Texas Law Review.
Levin wants “scholarly”? Natelson is as close to the definition of the word as you can get. And his latest article lays it all out nice and clear.
What’s his view?
Pretty straightforward: unless the president is basically repelling an attack, he is required to get congressional approval to use military force. Period.
Is Levin ignorant of the truth, or is he lying? No way to know from here. One thing’s for sure…both he and Obama are wrong, dead wrong, and they need to be stopped.
What’s the Tenth Amendment Center’s view on the issue? Simple. We’re not here to push political parties or political ideologies. We’re here for the Constitution – Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)
- Idiotic comment of the week, with accusations of racism, of course. - October 17, 2014
- The Bill of Rights Has a Preamble: Even if the Senate and the Heritage Foundation Omit It - October 17, 2014
- To combat Ebola, Obama plans Unconstitutional use of National Guard - October 16, 2014