Thomas Woods’s forbidden questions cover a variety of topics, but a common thread in his answers unifies the book: Throughout American history, the federal government has been the principal enemy of liberty. Within the government, a powerful president stands as the foremost danger. Under our constitutional system, the defense of states’ rights and strict construction offers the best prospect to preserve liberty.
The present Iraq war, with its appalling malfeasance and misconduct, entirely confirms Woods’s thesis. President Bush, the self-proclaimed “decider,” instigated the war; Congress did not declare it, as the Constitution requires. (It is one of Ron Paul’s many merits that he protested this act of gross usurpation.) But here opponents of a powerful executive must confront an objection. Has it not been the case, that in hundreds of cases, the president has sent troops into battle without prior approval by Congress? FULL ARTICLE
{ 17 comments }
Congress gave President Bush the right to use force in what ever way he thought right. The Constitution does not dictate a form in which congress must declare war. It is a vacant argument to say that congress did not authorize the war in Iraq. They did.
DickF,
Sorry, but you may want to reread the legislation. The white house proudly shows this on their website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
If there were such a carte blanche, you would find it in Sec. 3, “Authorization”:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
———–
Reason alone enabled one to determine that (1) was a crock of bs, even in 2002. Saddam had no possible interest in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless — he wasn’t a mad fanatic, just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to build WMD, he would have preferred to use that to rebuild the oil infrastructure that was destroyed, and never adequately replaced, in the first gulf war. Even if he DID have WMD, why would he have delivered them to our doorstep? How would he have? If you recall, the crap SCUD military ordinance rarely ever hit its local target.
And as for (2), does Congress have the authority to enforce UN resolution? The Consititution may allow the UN treaty to become law-of-the-land, but as to enforcement, ala police action? Don’t think so.
This amounts to an “authorization” based on weak, specious, and outright false premises. That’s hardly a declaration of war.
In the resolution, the only “war” discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing part of the “war on terrorism”. We didn’t declare that one, either.
There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names, without actually taking congressional responsibility for the action.
Then there are other, deeper controversies around the question of whether Congress can delegate expressly defined power, but that’s a whole ‘nuther discussion.
DickF,
Sorry, but you may want to reread the legislation. The white house proudly shows this on their website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
If there were such a carte blanche, you would find it in Sec. 3, “Authorization”:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
———–
Reason alone enabled one to determine that (1) was a crock of bs, even in 2002. Saddam had no possible interest in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless — he wasn’t a mad fanatic, just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to build WMD, he would have preferred to use that to rebuild the oil infrastructure that was destroyed, and never adequately replaced, in the first gulf war. Even if he DID have WMD, why would he have delivered them to our doorstep? How would he have? If you recall, the crap SCUD military ordinance rarely ever hit its local target.
And as for (2), does Congress have the authority to enforce UN resolution? The Consititution may allow the UN treaty to become law-of-the-land, but as to enforcement, ala police action? Don’t think so.
This amounts to an “authorization” based on weak, specious, and outright false premises. That’s hardly a declaration of war.
In the resolution, the only “war” discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing part of the “war on terrorism”. We didn’t declare that one, either.
There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names, without actually taking congressional responsibility for the action.
Then there are other, deeper controversies around the question of whether Congress can delegate expressly defined power, but that’s a whole ‘nuther discussion.
If Congress doesn’t need to vote on a declaration of war, then why was it ever done in the past?
Instead of declaring a war, they just voted to fund the war – bypassing all legal ramifications in the process. Thus, the president didn’t have to concern himself with international law. That’s pretty handy when you have a penchant for preemptive invasion, torture and holding pretty much anyone as a detainee for eternity.
Congress, in effect, became a group of Pontius Pilote wanabees – washing their hands of the whole matter. What a great group of guys.
Dick F
you should have a look at Garet Garrett’s “The People’s Pottage” – this issue is discussed extensively in those monographs.
Also, your claim that Frank Shostak is a monetarist is preposterous… have you read even 3 of his articles? No.
Money of zero maturity is a highly useful tool that correlates to various economic indicators and Shostak uses it as a tool and that’s all. His understanding of ABCT is superb.
Regards,
DickF,
Sorry, but you may want to reread the legislation. The white house proudly shows this on their website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
If there were such a carte blanche, you would find it in Sec. 3, “Authorization”:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
———–
Reason alone enabled one to determine that (1) was a crock of bs, even in 2002. Saddam had no possible interest in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless — he wasn’t a mad fanatic, just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to build WMD, he would have preferred to use that to rebuild the oil infrastructure that was destroyed, and never adequately replaced, in the first gulf war. Even if he DID have WMD, why would he have delivered them to our doorstep? How would he have? If you recall, the crap SCUD military ordinance rarely ever hit its local target.
And as for (2), does Congress have the authority to enforce UN resolution? The Consititution may allow the UN treaty to become law-of-the-land, but as to enforcement, ala police action? Don’t think so.
This amounts to an “authorization” based on weak, specious, and outright false premises. That’s hardly a declaration of war.
In the resolution, the only “war” discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing part of the “war on terrorism”. We didn’t declare that one, either.
There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names, without actually taking congressional responsibility for the action.
Then there are other, deeper controversies around the question of whether Congress can delegate expressly defined power, but that’s a whole ‘nuther discussion.
Eric,
No, I haven’t read Garet Garrett’s “The People’s Pottage” but I doubt it would change the Constitution. I have read a number of opinions from both sides of the issue. Bottomline is that Bush had more congressional authority than in any conflict since WWII. I am sure that will not be enough for most libertarians (I consider myself a libertarian btw) but that does not change the constitution either.
If Shostak is not a monetarist why does he spend over 6 pages in an article trying to define money? I also know other monetarists who follow a form of ABCT.
Help me out here. I have read every article I have seen by Shostak in the past 10 or so years, but I may have missed one. Can you point me to an article where Shostak discussions demand for money?
i guess that in the past ten years, this link has alluded you:
http://mises.org/daily/x?AuthorId=115
“Once it is established that the definition is sound one must stick to it regardless of whether it is well correlated with some other economic data or not. The final judge regarding the validity of a money supply definition should not be statistical correlations as such but the economic soundness of the definition. The soundness of a definition however, cannot be established by means of a statistical analysis but only by means of its theoretical soundness.”
http://mises.org/daily/1397
“We know that the law of supply and demand explains the price of a good. Likewise it would appear that the same law should explain the price of money. But there is a problem with this way of thinking since the demand for money arises because money has purchasing power, i.e., money has a price. Yet if the demand for money depends on its pre-existent price, i.e. purchasing power, how can this price be explained by demand?”
http://mises.org/daily/1430
“However, a close examination of the historical data shows that contrary to Friedman the Fed was extremely loose and pumped reserves into the system in its attempt to revive the economy (on this see Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression). The extent of monetary injections is depicted by changes in the Fed’s holdings of U.S. government securities. Thus on January 1930 these holdings stood at $485 million. By December 1933 they had jumped to $2,432 million—an increase of 401% (see chart). Moreover, the average yearly rate of monetary injections by the Fed during this period stood at 98%.”
http://mises.org/daily/1211
“At least on this score, Milton Friedman’s framework of stabilization is more credible. At least Friedman says that one should aim at stabilizing the rate of growth of the money supply. Needless to say, Austrians don’t subscribe to Friedman’s framework either. However, if one is forced to choose between two bad schemes — monetary stabilization or price stabilization — at least Friedman’s is more appealing.”
http://mises.org/daily/1949
Enjoy,
The issue of congressional authorization for the Iraq war is not even remotely central to my book, which covers a great variety of topics. (The 33 Questions page of my website, ThomasEWoods.com, has a link to the Library of Congress’ list of all 33 questions.)
Still, though, let me quote Louis Fisher, who is understood on all sides to be among the most expert of experts on presidential war powers.
The war in Iraq “may seem constitutional in the sense that President Bush received statutory authority from Congress in October 2002. However, Congress did not satisfy its constitutional obligation to _decide_ on war. The statute contained a grab bag of policy objectives. It supported U.S. diplomatic efforts. In reporting out the legislation, the House Committee on International Relations argued that passage of the resolution would help prevent war:
“‘The Committee hopes that the use of military force can be avoided. It believes, however, that providing the President with the authority he needs to use force is the best way to avoid its use. A signal of our Nation’s seriousness of purpose and its willingness to use force may yet persuade Iraq to meet its international obligations, and is the best way to persuade members of the Security Council and others in the international community to join us in bringing pressure on Iraq or, if required, in using armed force against it.’
“The resolution helped bring pressure on the Security Council to send inspectors into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction. They found nothing. As to whether war should or should not occur, the committee washed its hands. By passing legislation that allowed the President to make that decision, Congress transferred a primary constitutional duty from the legislative branch to the executive branch. That is precisely what the Framers fought against.”
Woodsy!
great book, but what does Harvard think? Are you familiar with Niall Ferguson?
“And as for (2), does Congress have the authority to enforce UN resolution? The Consititution may allow the UN treaty to become law-of-the-land, but as to enforcement, ala police action? Don’t think so.”
The authors of that bill should be removed from office. It’s disgusting how man UN dogs there are in Washington. The US government is disgrace, but the UN is many times worse.
All US wars since WWII have been unconstitutional, and all US wars since 1812 have been immoral.
Where to start with this tragedy of wrong constitution analysis? First, your use of the word “right” in this context betrays fatal ignorance. Next, since congress is nowhere in the constitution delegated the power to delegate its war declaration power, such action contravenes the 10th amendment. Congress must either declare war or not; there is no constitutional authority to cherry pick branch-specific powers for temporary or permanent hand off. One could just as accurately assert that congress may “authorize” the president to legislate, do his own advising and consenting on appointments, or enact any similar absurdity not expressly authorized by the constitution.
A meaningless, diversionary tidbit (irrelevant conclusion) that carries no weight for your “argument”, as explained above.
Good thing for proponents of honor (i.e., following the law one swore to support) that such a “vacant argument”, based wholly on slippery word substitution (“authorize” v “declare war”), is in this case a straw man of your composition. Nowhere in the instant article will you find such a claim, however accurate legally. Congress may have attempted to “authorize” a war, but it has no constitutional power to do so — again, as explained above — therefore, it is unlawful, non-binding, and inexcusable. Barring constitutional amendment, US presidents may not legally declare war under any circumstances, regardless of what tripe the congress emits from its rubber-stamp factory. Nor may congress declare war by spinelessly slipping to the president this note: “Do what thou wilt… if you think it’s necessary and the creek don’t rise.”
Eric,
You misunderstood. I can pull comments by Milton Friedman that talks about the demand for money. Where does Shostak actually develop the demand side. He has written entire articles on the supply of money. Where is the equal treatment of the demand.
Friedman gave demand for money lip service but in the end he ignored it as not important. For him velocity was unimportant.
Even the passages you quote seem to almost apologize for having to recognize demand. Demand is much more important than today’s economists give it credit especially as it relates to such things as targeted taxes (cuts or increases), regulations, subsidies, and other fiscal changes.
Sorry, this discussion should not be in this thread so I will drop it.
Concerning the war I understand that everyone has his own opinion how congress should give the right to declare war. Some want a consistently worded declaration that always includes the words “declare war,” others believe in other procedures. The bottom line is that the Constitution does not make this clear. The Constitution is a document that establishes principles not laws. It does not dictate such specifics as the wording of laws. The responsibility of determining when the executive or the legislative has over-stepped it bounds is in the Supreme Court. But just because you have another opinion doesn’t make it constitutional law.
I am a strict constructionist and that means that I believe the constitution should be interpreted as to what it says. Many conservatives want the constitution to be as flexible as the left-wing nuts. The constitution is what it is. Don’t use it as a club to beat your opponent in political wars.
Now if congress determines that there should be a specific wording of a declaration of war they are free to pass it into law and that would be totally constitutional, but until that time we must allow the constitution to only be what it is.
Never forget conservatives can be as “liberal” as liberals when it comes to using government to enforce its opinions.
Again, you’re abusing the word “right”. Congress has the constitutionally delegated power to declare war. The president does not. Congress does not have the constitutionally delegated power to delegate its powers to the executive branch. Until you deal with that legal reality, you’re just blowing in the wind and diverting with irrelevant conclusion.
Couldn’t be more irrelevant. What’s obvious in the constitution is that if wars are to be initiated, it is congress that must do the initiating. Could be on a Post-It note for all any constitutionalist cares.
Pure, easily controvertible baloney. The constitution is law. Read the supremacy clause.
More wrongness from a self-styled “strict constructionist”. The oaths in Article VI are not to support the supreme court’s opinion on the constitution, but the constitution itself. If they and the supreme court fail, the constitution is even more void than it was to start.
It does if it’s the correct opinion.
“Interpreted” as to what it says? It’s not that complicated, though plenty of tyranny’s been enacted on grounds asserting otherwise.
Get thee to a mirror.
…he said, in his prolonged effort to deny that the US constitution delegates only to congress the power to declare war.
I fear that my review has led to a misleading impression. My comment on the Iraq war was an aside. Woods addresses in his book the claim that the president can send troops into battle without prior approval by Congress. Even if the Congressional resolution on Iraq counts as a declaration of war, Woods’s principal argument remains valid.
Comments on this entry are closed.