Hilarious. Ever read Lincoln’s comments on the “declare war” and “commander in chief” clauses? Ever read Jefferson on this subject, who says the opposite of what you say he does?

If you’re going to argue for “decades of precedent,” then everything else the federal government does is equally constitutional. Nice job. Of course, Hamilton explained in the Federalist that none of this matters a whit until the document is formally amended. But way to run directly to the leftist position.

The action in Libya is a separate matter. I am focusing on the question of constitutionality (because it happens to interest me, if that’s all right with you). I have written an enormous amount on the subjects of war and foreign intervention precisely so I wouldn’t have to repeat myself to every critic. I do have a family.

The possibility that your beloved interventions could themselves be destabilizing never occurs to you, in spite of the ringing testimony of the 20th century. George Kennan — as middle of the road and establishment as you could ask for, so you would like him — said after World War II, “Today if one were offered the chance of having back again the Germany of 1913 — a Germany run by conservative but relatively moderate people, no Nazis and no Communists — a vigorous Germany, full of energy and confidence, able to play a part again in the balancing-off of Russian power in Europe, in many ways it would not sound so bad.” But let’s learn no lessons from this.

You call me “anti-American,” of course, since I suppose self-parody comes easily to a neocon.

Now go ahead back to supporting your jihadist rebels in the name of stopping jihad, and the rest of us will continue in the tradition of Russell Kirk, whom you have never heard of.

Where does it prohibit the federal government from regulating the number of children a family can have? Wouldn’t that be covered by interstate commerce?

I am debating someone who knows none of the sources. Why? Why should I do this? The Constitution has to specify a power in order for the federal government, or a branch of that government, to possess it. This is news to you?

If your position were the correct one, no one would have ratified the Constitution. That’s undeniable. That’s why I issued my challenge to Levin: show me one Federalist during the entire period when the Constitution was pending who took your position. There is no such person. Sorry, but a pseudonymous poster on my blog, in 2011, does not override the consensus of absolutely everyone connected with the Constitution.

Oh, but that’s a long time ago and it’s impractical today! Yes, that’s what the leftists say about the Constitution, too, and they do what you do: read nothing, make things up, and “amend” the Constitution by repeated usurpation. Great job.

Why are you implying I am poor, by the way?

The fact that you think capitalism came about through coercion would be unbelievable had it not been preceded by a string of equally fact-free assertions. This is the answer to how capitalism came about: http://mises.org/daily/2404

You would be aware of this literature had you actually read anything before adoping neocon talking points — er, forming your opinions.

You have to track me down to debate me! The nerve! Next time I’ll charter a jet and we can debate in person.

Where does the Constitution prohibit the number of children a family can possess ?

Moreover, the Constitution specifies that the President command the armed forces — where does the Constitution specify what he can and can’t do with this power ?

Moreover, what don’t you understand about Congress implicitly supporting armed force by not de-funding it ?

Moreover, a primary rationale for the Constitution was to correct the shortcomings in the articles of confederation in defending the nation against external threats.

The President was the instrument to address this shortcoming, namely that war making by disparate states and Congressional representatives was suicide. The Chief Executive was created to enable the US to wield force more nimbly and effectively.

In addition, capitalism has never been realized, it’s bounty and efficacy has always been marginalized within a statist framework. Probably because well-intentioned pacifists like yourself have allowed statists to gain the upperhand via coercive means.

Lastly, you think far less of the Constitution than even the most vile Leftist. I can prove this.

I challenge you to take an oath to defend the Constitution as I have.

Will you accept this challenge?

Where does the constitution deny the judicial branch the authority to declare war?

Ridin’ Dirty seems to believe the Constitution is a grant of unlimited powers unless otherwise stated. Tom, if he can’t understand why this is wrong–in the face of facts–his argument is lost. In his view the Congress and Judiciary are limited (or are they?), but the President, well, he has unlimited powers, only checked by lack of funds. I wonder Dirty, can the president send troops into New York, grab some vagabonds, and kill them? I don’t see in the Constitution a power telling him not to.

It doesn’t, however I would be amused to see the Supreme Court execute this ‘power’.

Or to quote Jackson:

‘John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!’

You do realize that pacifist and capitalist aren’t antonyms, don’t you?

“Where in the Constitution (a series of negative rights) does it state that the President doesn’t have the authority to wage war?”

The Constitution is not a set of negative rights, although it presupposes them, but a document that establishes and defines a limited government with certain powers. To say you don’t see a power is a misunderstanding of the document, since the government only has what is given. It would be absurd—absurd—to suppose the government unlimited powers, especially in one man. The point was not to define rights, but to define power—in a limited fashion. You read the Constitution as some open-ended document where all power is presumed given, unless there is a prohibition expressed. Would the president have the power to tax? Even though Congress is authorized to do so, the president is not prohibited. So in your view, if we want to be consistent, the president can also tax the people.

“I believe the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th et al Amendments prohibits this”

While you are correct, it’s misleading. For one, the BOR did not change the structure of the Constitution. The Constitution never had the power to do any of the things the BOR protected; that is, the BOR was, to some extent, useless. For example, the BOR was ratified in 1791: did this mean the Federal government could infringe the freedom of speech in, say, 1790? No, since the Federal government wasn’t given the authority to do this. This was exactly Hamilton’s point against having the BOR, since with a BOR it would make people think the government had these powers in the first place. Of course they didn’t. The BOR is an exclamation point: saying these rights [along with other non-numerated (9 amendment)] are to be protected.

“This is amusing considering that capitalism is based on capital and the plundering of this capital is a denial of rights. Essentially your argument that economic plunder is not a check on unlimited power is absurd.”

Nice straw man! Ridin’ you engage here with non sequiturs and straw mans, going off on tangents not relevant to the discussion. The discussion under review is war powers, not capitalism or what you claim pacifism. You fail since your argument starts with a false premise. But, what’s the point debating you, since you fail to read the relevant facts—facts which would prove you wrong.

Radical Whig,

You seem to be having a difficult time with a simple question:

For the 5th time, I am challenging you to cite the article in the Constitution that prohibits the President from waging war.

Save the strawman arguments and fallacies. It is a simple challenge:

Moreover, empirical evidence throughly debunks your fantasy since numerous Presidents have utilized the power that Obama is now exercising without substantive challenge save from a few fringe pacifists.

It doesn’t have to!! It’s a document of limited and granted powers. If the power is not there they don’t have it. Pretty simple, yet hard to understand, I suppose. And because such and such president does something doesn’t make it ex post constitutional. Why is this hard to understand? Why don’t you look at the constitutional convention, the Federalist, the state ratifying conventions and prove me wrong. I mean Tom laid out, with relevant facts, the destruction of your argument. Also, what’s with the pacifist nonsense? You take the position that people who don’t want a despot are pacifists. Again, it doesn’t follow. Look up Bruce Fein, who served in the Reagan administration. He was against Bush and against presidential dictatorship, along with empire. I suppose he’s a pacifist also. In fact read his new book:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Empire-Before-Fall-Bruce/dp/1452829535

George,

I have two questions for you:

1) where in the Constitution does it prohibit the Commander-in-Chief to wage war without Congressional approval?

2) If your interpretation of the Constitution is correct, why isn’t it being enforced?

In reality, the majority of Americans reject the fundamental foundation of Tom’s absurd approach:

(Namely that statist threats only exist at home, that they can be appeased, and that they are best engaged after they metastasize.)

In sum, the Constitution’s authority (or any legal authority) is only as credible as the will and means to defend it. Moreover, freedom in 1776 and virtually everywhere and anytime has come by coercive means — not ad nauseam legal wrangling from “Why is their air?” theorists who couldnt identify the business end of a firearm, much less use it to defend their utopian world view.

Fortunately, pacifists like Tom do not hold any sway over the vast majority of Americans who are rational and practical realists hence the US will continue to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, Congress will continue to fund this action, and Tom will no doubt continue to amuse us with the notion that this action is ‘un-Constitutional’.

The bottom line is that for all of the theoretical ramblings, hand wringing, and whining — pacifists like Tom are irrelevant fringe who do not understand the true nature of coercion and its influence on the geopolitik. As a result, his pacifist-capitalist ilk will always remain marginalized societal actors subject to the will of ideologues (both statists and classical liberals) who better understand the true nature of coercion and Constitutional law.

You can’t be a pacifist and a capitalist at the same time since coercion is a legitimate means to obtain economic ends.

Lack of understanding of this truth exposes the fundamental flaw in Tom’s ideological ‘house of cards’

If you’re going to argue for “decades of precedent,” then everything else the federal government does is equally constitutional. Nice job.– Tom

Unfortunately for you — My ‘decades of precendent’ is more substantive than your ‘empty subjective rhetoric’ on Constitutional intent.

For example, I am challenging you for the 10th time:

Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the President from waging war.

Indeed, I will make it even easier on you:

Where in the Constitution does it specify how the President exercises his role as Commander-in-Chief ?

In sum, by your ‘logic’ since the Constitution doesn’t specify the manner in which the President can lead, you could argue that he cannot launch frontal assaults since the Constitution doesn’t specifically authorize ‘frontal assaults’

Bizarre that a supposed capitalist wants his law spelled out in a 50,000 page document of specifics?!

No wonder the faith-based anarchists dont have a societal ‘pot to piss in’ , save the one they get from taxpayer funded government largesse at places like Auburn, Loyola Marymount, Harvard, et al.

I will be eagerly awaiting your amusing and fallacious rebuts

Taking a constitutional stance based on original intent is sound.Whereas the big government side is to twist words to fit their goals.
Their lust to be dominated and to dominate others dates to the beginning of the old republic,with a desire to emulate the British empire.
The probably don’t believe in the Declaration of Independence either,other than a cookout on July 4th.
So here we are in a union of states without a constitution.

I think the lack of understanding is on your part in that you don’t understand the definition of pacifist and capitalist. One most certainly can be a pacifist and a capitalist at the same time. Blurting out a foolish proclamation and declaring it the truth doesn’t make it so. Regardless, your sentence is a poor logical construct.

You throw the word “pacifist” frequently as if it were a charge or even a denigration. A great many of us either served in the military, have family members serving, or have lost family members in one of the services. I personally believe that the men and women who’ve sworn an oath to defend the Constitution with their own lives, and in so doing defend the lives of the American people, are the most valuable resource we have. As such, their lives should be risked and expended only when all other possibilities have been exhausted, and under no other circumstances.

I suspect that you, on the other hand, count yourself among the chickenhawks who are more than willing, at the drop of a hat, to send other people’s children off to kill still other people’s children in the alleged defense of something called “American Interests,” a nebulous concept that mean whatever the occupant of the White House, his handlers, or various TV news commentators want it to mean at any given moment.

Ridin Dirty is either an insufferable troll or an insufferable buffoon. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and go with troll.

Note the ad hominem attacks devoid of fact logic and empiricism from the peanut gallery

This is typical of a faith based fringe group incapable of defending their ideological position with substance

Indeed Tom has turned tail and run from all of my challenges.

Censorship is next, which is fine since it confirms the veracity of my position.

Moreover, I can’t be a troll if I am responding to posts that were addressed to me!?

Ridin’

Tom has answered your question, as have I and others. You simply repeat your banal question as if it hasn’t been answered, but it has. The veracity of what? Your question? You have no position other than mindless questions, of which we replied. You answer with a disagreement, but provide no proof, other than Argumentum ad populum, non sequitur’s, straw man’s, and precedent. Then you go on about pacifism (no proof given, of course) and capitalism when these are not the issues, again trying to distract from your non-argument. Funny you claim ad hominem, when you yourself did that to Tom.

Radical is correct. Your questions have been defused. I don’t say answered because your questions are more like “did you stop beating your wife”. “where in the Constitution does it prohibit the Commander-in-Chief to wage war without Congressional approval?” is a question not needing direct answer, but one that needs defusing with a presentation of how the Constitution actually works. This has been given, therefore, your constant repeating of the same question (not answered because you appear not to yet understand how it was answered) is meaningless and “banal” as Radical pointed out.

The “Peanut Gallery” is supporting someone they feel is being treated rudely by what one posted called a troll.

Of course, there is no provision in the constitution to prohibit the absurd hypothetical you cited. However , there are provisions to remove those who would engage in this action.

Hence the COnstitution does not concern itself with minutia, including specific exercises of executive power, however it does provide a means to correct abuses from all branches of government

Lastly a COnstitution is only as viable as the will and means of the people to defend and adhere to it.

and since you, Tom and the anarchist anti-American, anti-Constitutionalist ilk are categorically rejected by the vast majority of the civil, business, and political society your handwringing that the action in LIbya is ‘unConstitutional’ while the bombs are being dropped and the effort is continued to be funded is amusing as it is absurd and irrelevant

You stand correct, at least you had more guts than Tom who continues to hide

Actually, according to your reading of the Constitution, Congress does not control the purse strings. There are no clauses in Article II expressly denying the president the power to lay and collect taxes and appropriate that money toward his war effort on his own.

I suppose Congress could try to impeach him but that could be easily avoided. All he has to do is call the armed forces into the capitol and slaughter all the senators and congressmen before they vote on the impeachment. After all, there is nothing in Article II expressly prohibiting him from doing so.

This is the logical conclusion to which your argument leads.

Let’s clarify a few things here:

(1) “Ridin’ Dirty” thinks the welfare state is constitutional, since it exists. That is his position. He has asked us how, if we’re right about the Constitution, there have been so many violations of economic freedom anyway. He thinks this is a coherent question, though of course it is not.

(2) This means his entire constitutional theory, if we can call it that, is even more worthless than it seemed at the beginning, when he refused to offer any sources for anything he was saying.

(3) He has still not explained why we are supposed to believe that the mode of constitutional exegesis proposed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison is inferior to the one proposed by “Ridin’ Dirty.” It is hard to ask this question with a straight face.

(4) His constitutional position has been beaten into the ground a thousand times, yet he prances around as if he is the scholar and we the morons.

(5) The fact that he was apparently kicked off the Mises forums is cited as evidence of how intolerant Rothbardians are, that they just can’t take the heat from a great mind like “Ridin’ Dirty.” Overlooked, of course, is that a person as obnoxious, ill-informed (again, no relevant sources are ever cited), and rude as “Ridin’ Dirty” would be banned from the Frum Forums or any other neocon or progressive site within five minutes. The only way the Rothbardians distinguish themselves here is not in their alleged intolerance, but in the exact opposite sense — how _long_ they put up with him.