War Powers of the President and Congress Enumerated

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Seems fairly clear, doesn't it. The President shall be commander in chief...not the people directly, not the Congress, not the pollsters, not the protesters, not the Press.

The President.

Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
...

The above are the War Powers of Congress assembled. No where in this document does it state that the Congress shall have authority to deploy (or redeploy) or command the Armed Forces of the united States - the Legislature is responsible for raising and supporting armies (paying and equipping them, setting appropriate force levels for the Federal Army as a whole), but the Executive is responsible for their actions, once the use of force has been authorized.

Historically, the unwritten portion of the Constitution has provided that the Navy belongs to the President to deploy as needed and that the Army belongs to the Congress. Once action is authorized, or war is declared, the responsibility of the Congress is to properly fund and equip the forces unleashed. The President, through the Secretary of Defense and the service Secretaries, is responsible for deployment and use in the field. Overall, this system has served us fairly well until quite recently.

While certain august personages, most notably Ms Nancy and Dirty Harry Reid, amongst many others seem to thing there is a mandate for departure from Iraq or that they (and their fellow travellers in the media) are to be consulted on tactical decisions. They are not, nor is the public at large, for despite any verbiage to the contrary, we do not live in a democracy. Our Founding Fathers were quite clear about that as well: this is a REPUBLIC (representative citizenry). Stipulated, the property owners wanted to maintain political power in those who were deemed to have a vested (property) interest in the area they were representing so they limited the Federal franchise to property owners. While I may agree with the spread of the franchise to more electors, selecting bodies over 18 years and with a body temp of around 37C (98.6F) seems a bit much. At least the authors of the Constitution wanted some symbol of responsibility and concern for the community to be demonstrated by those to whom the franchise was entrusted. They were adamantly against warm body democracy, just as fearful of the tyranny of the minority as that of the majority.

What about 'war powers?' you may ask. Remember that War Powers was enacted by a Democrat Congress to spank a Republican President who escalated an unpopular war by authorizing the bombing of enemy sanctuaries in a putatively neutral country. Was Nixon's action illegal? I don't know, though I am sure it can be argued either way. Was it tactically sound? Probably and as such was technically within his authority. Was Congress out of line? By the strictest interpretation of the section above, probably not. However, War Powers is a Constitutional question of no small complexity that neither side wants to put in front of the Court. And that's just fine with me.

OK, for those who would argue that this is an 'illegal war,' define the legality of it. "Congress did not decalre war!" True enough, but the language of the resolution authorizing the President to use whatever force necessary, as well as the UN resolutions and the cease-fire of 1991 did. Would a specific declaration have been better? Of course it would. Unfortunately, realpolitik in the current US precluded that.

While President Bush would have preferred an actual declaration of war, both immediately after 9/11 and in 2003, he was well aware that he would never receive it. The Senate would have fillibustered any such declaration. The Constitutionality of which is open - the language states that Congress (House? Senate? Both?) shall have the power to declare war, not the Legislature which term does mean both Houses assembled. Face it, we are under attack by an external enemy that wants to destroy our way of life and impose his own. And at the same time, the Congress is full of people whose only interest seems to be the continuation of their personal power.

To bad, the Republic was great while it lasted. Long live the Empire!

(God help us if we become the People's Republic...)

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …”

Seems self-evident, does it not? Yet Congress has done precisely that on more than one occasion. The Communications Decency Act is one; McCain-Feingold Campaign reform is another. This latest is all the more amazing in its audacity since the Supreme Court has already struck down provisions of this bill that have been tried before. On the grounds that said provisions violated the First Amendment. The Court has help that political speech is protected and that money equals speech in the context of political activity. The authors of this shameful piece of legislation know full well that it is unconstitutional, yet they went ahead, confident in the public’s lack of understanding. That so many of their contemporaries went along does not surprise, after all, they will benefit most. All know the court will overturn this law, and while they will make noise in the press about it, they know there is nothing to be done.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that balance needs to be implemented in the political process, but until and unless the major media outlets are willing to acknowledge their bias, such balance is not forthcoming.

As to speech itself, the prohibition contained in the Constitution applied to Congress. It does not apply to the Executive or Legislative branches, nor does it apply to the several states, except where the several states themselves have incorporated similar language. It most certainly does not apply to private institutions.

Does this mean that Universities, Clubs, and other private agencies may limit your speech to meet their ideas of decency or acceptable speech? or that your local town, with due process, may limit it also? Yes it does. The point is that the Federal Government may not.

Now all of that does not mean I have the right to force it down your throat, any more than you have the right to force me to listen or read your opinions and ideas. That is the great thing about our Constitution, the free exchange of ideas and thoughts is fundamental to our form of government, the necessity of an educated, informed electorate requires it.

Our Founding Fathers understood that for Republican democracy to work, the electorate had to be informed. They also understood that anyone could form opinions in direct contravention to those of the government, and that those ideas may be both important and influential to the process. This is not a bad thing in the exercise of sovereign franchise.

What????? Some of you may be asking is sovereign franchise. It is the exercise of political power by those who hold it. You, others, and me. At the current time, it applies to any warm body over the age of 18 years who can prove citizenship in the US. It does not mean that all of those who chose to exercise their right are wise, learned or sensible. Nor does it mean that they understand what they are doing, or they understand the responsibility that they hold. The exercise of sovereign franchise is the ultimate exercise of political speech and it is your responsibility to be as informed as possible so as to make the best decision possible. All the more so since the decision will have far reaching consequences and must be what you feel is best for the nation as a whole.

All of this is a benefit of the free speech and press provisions of our Constitution and it is our responsibility as citizens to safe guard these precious things.

I realized upon further review that I had chopped the clause early. The resulting analysis had dealt with it, but it is now in full form. Speech is next...

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…’

What does this mean? Does it mean there can be no prayer in public facilities or governmental functions? No. It means that Congress shall not establish a religious preference for the Nation, pro or con. The Founding Father’s were concerned about the possibility of religious tyranny, the most oppressive form of tyrannical government imaginable, and included this phrase as insurance against such occurrences. Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, was explicit in acknowledging Faith by stating that ‘…all men were endowed by their Creator…’ with certain unalienable rights. He has been described as a Deist, which states he accepted a deity in Nature.

Does this mean that there is to be no separation between Church and State? No, it does not, but neither is there to be specific denial of religion either. If a school, for example, wishes that each day should start with a moment of prayer, the State has no authority to forbid such activity. Local citizens may object to this, and many have. In my opinion, such School Boards are idiots, but that’s just my opinion. Having been a student, and taken many tests in my life, both military and civilian, I have often whispered a brief prayer for guidance, wisdom and focus prior to starting such activity. Haven’t you? And if so, what makes Congressmen any different? Why should they not start their day with prayer? In fact, they do. Both the House and Senate have Chaplin’s on the payroll and I for one have no objection to such men being paid by my tax dollars.

Wait! I hear you scream. What about Muslims, Buddhists, Wicca’s, Satanists, etc…Does this clause mean I have to respect them, too? Yep, also means that Congress can do nothing about them either. It does not mean that they, or others can force their opinion upon you, just as you cannot force your opinion of Gaia upon them, or me. These statements do not prohibit any of us from speaking about it, but if I chose to ignore you that is my right. This does not mean that a Nativity scene cannot be displayed on public ground, or that equal time must be given to celebrations or scenes of other faiths. If you do not like a Christian scene depicted on public ground, you are free to display your own image across the street, and at your expense. I will not pay for it, nor do I expect you to pay for my preferred imagery.

All of the above may make sense, but recent American history has swung far to far to the other extreme in denying the rights of Christians and many others from public display. The left in this country flatly denies the existence of traditional forms of faith and instead opt for New Age, multi-cultural faiths that make everyone feel good but mean nothing (IMHO). The left borders on atheism, which accepts the concept of godhead, but flatly denies and rejects its authority. A state-sponsored atheism is just as tyrannical as is a state mandated faith.

And just as Unconstitutional.

Let me say first that the US Constitution is a document specifically intended to limit the power of the Federal government in the lives of the citizens of this country. Without this basic understanding, what follows will generate nothing more than flames directed at me as a reactionary fool. I expect those, anyway, but at least hope for some thoughtful discussion.

The Bill of Rights

"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


I’m going to tackle this one phrase at a time, beginning with the first clause, ‘Congress shall make no law…’

First thing: This language is quite clear, anyone with a grasp of the English language should see that, yet I must confess surprise that lawyers and Congress-critters seem to be able to ignore this. Naïve of me, I know, as I’ve been aware of the shortcomings of the US education system since I was enrolled in it. I was quite fortunate in that my parents encouraged me to read everything I could get my hands on, and to think about it.

Secondly: This says nothing about State legislatures, cities, private organizations, etc. They can do as they please; this clause limits the power of the Federal government. State legislatures are limited by their own constitutions, not by limits imposed by the Federal Constitution.

Next; ‘…respecting an establishment of religion…’

A link to the Constitution of the United States. More later.

Herein is where I plan to include thoughts on the Constitution, Campaign Finance Reform, the Bill of Rights, etc...In short, a smattering of thought on subjects not included on the Daily Blog.