5 REASONS WHY CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES

"5 REASONS WHY CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES
SHOULD BE AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ
by Joel Skousen, editor
World Affairs Brief


1. This war is unconstitutional without a declaration of war by Congress.
Conservatives and libertarians have good reason to ask why Congress has defaulted on its responsibility to declare war. According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution, it is the exclusive domain of Congress to declare war. However, it is not always easy to determine when a conflict of force arises to the level of full scale war. Reasonable men have disagreed ever since the founding of America on what constitutes a war.


Mary Mostert, analyst for BannerOfLiberty.com, in justification of President Bush's assertion that he needs no declaration of war from Congress in Iraq, has written, "Less than five years after the Constitution was ratified, the first President to send troops as Commander in Chief, without the approval of Congress, was George Washington, who sent troops to Pennsylvania to put down the Whiskey Rebellion?.President Thomas Jefferson had a remarkably similar problem when he sent the US Navy to battle the Barbary Pirates to stop them from seizing American ships.


She is historically correct. However, her eager apology for Clinton's and Bush's assumptions of presidential war making power does not consider the key legal question surrounding that power: Is there some distinguishing factor or demarcation line that can denote when a President can rightfully respond to an immediate threat with military or police action, and yet delineate when Congress is duty bound to declare war? There is. When the attack requires an immediate defensive response, and/or when there is no clearly definable enemy, it is appropriate for the President to act in the defense of the nation without a Congressional declaration of war.


Mary Mostert would claim that terrorism qualifies as an undefined enemy. This I will grant, as long as we are talking about terrorists without a known provenance making hit and run attacks against US targets. But this allowance cannot be accepted as an open-ended excuse to attack any country suspected of having a connection to terrorism, under flimsy pretenses. Citing prior historical examples when the presidential war making criteria were not followed (such as in the British attacks on private American shipping after the War of Independence) is not sufficient to justify failure to employ rational criteria today. Once we identify a nation that is a clear sponsor of terrorism (as Bush claimed was the case with Afghanistan and now Iraq) and determine to attack that nation, that action should be fully debated by Congress and require a declaration of war before proceeding. There is no reason not to take this additional step. Once initial defensive precautions are put in place, there is time for Congress to consider the evidence.


The justifications for war against Iraq are tenuous, especially as to the link to terrorism, as I have detailed in prior briefs. Even if Iraq's links to terrorism can be proven, that linkage is not the primary reason Iraq is being targeted. Actually, the entire government and nation of Iraq is presently being targeted for full scale war primarily because of a partial failure to comply with the conditions unilaterally imposed by the US at the end of a previous undeclared war. Remember, the original Gulf War was not sanctioned by the UN. Only after the US took unilateral action (with a token coalition) did the UN pass Resolution 1441 requiring Iraq to disarm. This fact eliminates the argument that the US has to go back to the UN for permission to tackle Iraq.


That said, here is the $64,000 question: Why hasn't the President asked Congress for a declaration of war, even when it is clear that he could easily get the votes? The answer lies in the fact that, as a globalist, Bush needs to keep US public opinion tied to the UN. The basic underlying purpose of all the warmongering that Bush and previous presidents have taken up in recent years is to keep US soldiers engaged with objectives of UN intervention, of some form or another. In other words, the reason Bush has been avoiding a declaration of war is NOT because he can't get the votes and would be embarrassed. It is because forcing a US/UN linkage better serves the globalist agenda. If Congress were to declare war on request of the president, the US would be formally asserting that Iraq is a direct threat to the US and UN approval would become irrelevant.


So not only is Bush insisting on UN cooperation, he must make sure Congress doesn't declare war lest it undermine the need to deal with the UN. In Wednesday's speech to the nation, Bush continued to hammer on further empowerment of the UN with force: "The world needs today and will need tomorrow international bodies with the authority and the will to stop the spread of terror and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. A threat to all must be answered by all. (Loud cheer)?High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are willing to stand behind them--and use force if necessary?After all, the United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to 'make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force.'" In prior years all leaders downplayed the use of force for the UN to make sure people didn't feel their nation's sovereignty was threatened. Now we are moving into the final stage of UN empowerment. Thus, the necessity to create constant conflict and then insist on a UN solution via force.


So, why has Congress itself resisted exercising its constitutional right, when it would be an open and shut debate leading to final approval? I think it is because there is collusion among a broad spectrum of the leaders in Congress (of both parties), acting in concert with the President and his CFR advisors, to undermine the Constitution through UN interaction. Rep. Ron Paul, in early December of 2002, elicited a telling response from key members of Congress when he presented a motion to Congress to declare war on Iraq. His motion was met with an immediate wall of hostility from high leaders in Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution. According to Rep. Paul's report, "It was after that when the Chair [Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Il] stated that declaring war is 'anachronistic, it isn't done anymore...' It was a jaw-dropping admission...but there was more. The Chair went on to say that the Constitution has been 'overtaken by events, by time' and is 'no longer relevant to a modern society.' The Ranking Minority Member [Tom Lantos, D-Ca] called the declaration of war 'frivolous and mischievous.' Worse yet, all transcripts, both public and private, of the committee meeting where this was presented were purged illegally to hide what transpired. Doctoring the public record of an open public meeting is against the law. Whoever gave the orders to do so was guilty of obstruction of justice and other crimes. That these records were purged is also firm evidence of a conspiracy because persons with fiduciary responsibility to Congress were threatened or suborned into altering or erasing the transcript.


The coming war is a unilateral act on the part of the US, even though there will be a token coalition of support involved in the Iraqi invasion. Everyone knows it is the US pushing and bribing the others. No one believes it is an honest and willing coalition."

"by Joel Skousen, Editor World Affairs Brief, www.joelskousen.com"

www.joelskousen.com...

man u don't like george bush

I dont like the organizations george belongs to. I dont like the selfish metality they promote.

Congress ok'd the war on terror, this was merely a campaign within that war. No breach of constitution, maybe a question of whether Congress gave too much leeway. Nobody in their right mind doubts the danger Hussein presented, nobody doubts what misery he would have loved to pour upon our nation and would have if he'd been able to, that is to say had he the time to hand off WMD's to the enemies of his enemies. Hopefully he was stopped before that happened.

Where are the other four?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Congress ok'd the war on terror, this was merely a campaign within that war. No breach of constitution, maybe a question of whether Congress gave too much leeway. Nobody in their right mind doubts the danger Hussein presented, nobody doubts what misery he would have loved to pour upon our nation and would have if he'd been able to, that is to say had he the time to hand off WMD's to the enemies of his enemies. Hopefully he was stopped before that happened.

Where are the other four?

Congress is complicit, no doubt.
Danger he presented? Compared to North Korea & Pakistan? Thomas, that whole hyperbole is what's known as a running joke! Saddam became "dangerous" as soon as the Cheneys-Rumsfields-Wolfshwitczs-Pearles decided to sit down in 2000 an write the "America in the New Century" manifesto claiming our "right" to be the only world power and controller of the middle east.
Saddam's link was then & is now, a pretense.

Where are the other four?

They're in the link at the end..

1) The President is with-in bounds of the War Powers act.

2) The precidence of releiving us of a few rights during times of War or crisis, has been made by most presidents of the time, most notably Lincoln. After the threat is alleiviated, they will be restored to full constitutional ability.

3) A pathetic attempt to come up with another reason Constitutional conservatives should not be for the war. A) This has nothing to do with the Constitution, B) if India pre-emptive struck Pakistan there'd be nuclear war. Far different from our pre-emptive strikes.

4) No proof. This point is void as being mere opinion with a few different interpretations of vague facts and obscurities.

5) Again, vague facts and suspect quotes to lead a reader into thinking something ominous is a-foot.

There is only really TWO reasons for Constitutionalists to be against the War on Terror, and only number 2 has any true validity.

And even then that validity is limited due to historical references to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, World War 2....so on...

Sorry but I as an intelligent and responsible and conservative citizen of this fine country, am going to need more than a few opinionated complataints to turn my views.

Originally posted by quango

Where are the other four?

They're in the link at the end..

Thanks, Quango. I believe that is about the third time you've had straighten me out in the last few months! What are your consulting fees?