The stock market plunges. The economy tanks. The deficit explodes. But all Obama's henchmen want to talk about is Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh! Could the motivation for this be any more transparent? This type of a desparate diversion usually comes much later than month two. How might Obama's most fervent supporters, until recently known as the Bush Haters, have reacted had George W. Bush's goon squad gone after Keith Obermann, Michael Moore, or Al Franken in the middle of this mess? Obama's Jedi Mind Trick seems to have backfired as the dean of talk radio has reduced the President to his level by challenging Him to a debate. Rahm Emanuel envisioned making the Republican Party seem as Rush Limbaugh's to command, not knocking his Boss down to the level of an A.M. yakker. It reminds me of the old saying, "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it."

Thanks for the link.

What is utterly amazing is that the trope that Rush Limbaugh is the "leader" of the Republican party is made out to be more of a scandal than roughly equivalent perception that the media act as the press agents of Obama.

I must say that I agree with Al Franken.

Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.

But Michael Moore is an even bigger, fatter idiot who does not know about the invention of soap and hair cleaning products. Beard cheese anyone?

Both men have made themselves mouthpieces for their causes. The liberals seem to think ALL republicans and conservatives are like the drug addict on the radio. The conservatives think all liberals but on rainbow shirts, hump trees, and read he Communist Manifesto.

The truth is these men do NOT represent the leanings of the majority of liberals or conservatives. Their spewing only causes harm and divisiveness.

How about we get those two lard-a$ses to Sumo wrestle? The loser has to shut up forever.

Be well,

Sponge

Hey Dan,
I think you'll like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6H0i1RAdHk

I don’t know, if you actually listened to Limbaugh, you couldn’t possibly agree with what the moronic liberal baby Franken has to say about him.

And other than being on opposite ends of the social and political spectrum, Moore and Limbaugh are not in the same functional area code.

Limbaugh tactfully defends and proves himself and his conservative beliefs every single day and is informed and entertaining in addition to knowing who he is and what his real purpose is. He does not pretend to be anything more than what or who he is and speaks tongue-in-cheek of his newly assigned role as the “leader of the Republican Party”. Moore writes really bad books is rarely, if ever, challenged in a politically hostile environment, gets quoted a lot by the liberal media and really believes that he is a guiding liberal voice and leader.

What I like about Rush are his convictions that are echoed on this post by many participants frequently: He is a Conservative first and being a Republican doesn’t seem to often enter his vocabulary. In fact, he often disdains “Republicans” who do not mirror Conservative values.

But he is loving the fact that this clueless President either directly or through his handlers have put him in a position to pick fights with him and highlight his importance. It dimishes the POTUS and makes Limbaugh's show more interesting and entertaining.

"He is a Conservative first and being a Republican doesn’t seem to often enter his vocabulary. In fact, he often disdains 'Republicans' who do not mirror Conservative values."

Too bad Limbaugh didn't disdain Big Government Bush more. And too bad he has yet to find an undeclared, unconstitutional Republican war he hasn't supported.

I would beg to differ that he didn't admonish Bush on a regular basis. The War? Hmmm.

In a perfect world, all Conservatives would be cookie cutter and follow lock step the principles that you and some others would project for them. But, last time I looked, this ain't a perfect world and there will be some of the same ilk who might differ on one point or another.

In general, if there is no softening of litmus testing and the core continues to insist that the highest of Conservative values be maintained to a T, you will likely need to wait for Mr. Perfect Right to come along. And then there’s the task of getting him (or her) elected. In the meantime, you might be living with a succession of Obamas for some time to come.

And with that in mind, as I said in a previous post, you may never have to worry about seeing another conservative, Republican or RINO get elected as a major candidate again.

Either way, I wish you luck.

Anyway, you won't have to worry about Limbaugh as he's not running for any office that I know of.

Rush talks about respecting and following the Constitution. On Republican wars and civil liberties, the Constitution disappears as a concern of his. That's my litmus test, the Constitution. Follow it consistently, or stop pretending to be its defender. If you think the Constitution is wrong or inadequate in some area for the moment, follow it by advocating amendment as that Constitution allows. But enough with the blatently obvious hypocrisy.

I'm sorry you continue to confuse principle with political puritanism. You continue to miss the point. Nevertheless, I go to great pains to not confuse Elephant dung-colored glasses and Obama Derangement Syndrome with conservatism.

Eric F. Langborgh seems to imply that something the Bush administration did and Rush Limbaugh supported in foreign policy or in the area of civil liberties violated the Constitution. In fact many posters on this site seem to believe that. Perhaps some poster could enlighten this poor visitor from the eighteenth century exactly which provisions of the Constitution were violated and by which actions.

Market is down another 320 today.

The man-child is handling it by giving a speech to propose his National Health Care plan.

Brilliant!

Move on, nothing to see here.

Okay Doc...this is how I see it, but I admit I could be interpreting it wrong...but here goes.

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...violated by the Patriot Act.

* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

...Guantanamo...and remember that a US citizen at one point was arrested in his home state and taken there....

* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

...Gitmo again...water boarding is torture.

Article 1, section 8
Congress shall...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

...Congress, not the President

Article 1, section 9
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
...last I checked there were no invading armies.

Of course, I can't recall the last time we had a President that did not break the rules...on either side of the aisle.

All in my lifetime have left a big pee stain on the Bill of Rights.

It gets worse all the time.

Be well,

Sponge

Sponge,

Thanks for the try but I don't get it. You would have to tell me of an "unreasonable search" conducted against a "person of the United States" to show a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I know of none. A "search" made pursuant to explicit law with administrative or judicial oversight, as searches made under the Patriot Act have been would be presumptively "reasonable."

Non-citizen detainees at Gitmo are not part of "the people" to whom rights are explicitly limited under the Fourth Amendment or to whom they are implicitly limited under any parts of the Bill of Rights. (I expect any citizen held at Gitmo was quickly moved once his status was ascertained.) Detainees were, while detained, not subject to "criminal prosecutions" so they again, explicitly, do not have rights under the Sixth Amendment. Did Nazi soldiers have such rights during WWII?

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was not suspended (it didn't need to be since the "privilege" was never intended to be extended to those not "persons of the United States.)

Whether or not water-boarding is torture, it was not administered as punishment and therefore would not fall under Eighth Amendment restrictions.

President Bush did not "declare war" nor issue letters of marque and reprisal. Nor did Presidents Jefferson or Madison when they moved against the Barbary pirates. Making war and declaring war were intended to be two different things.

I think that exhausts your list. I do have a problem with individuals from the right or from the left who read things into the Constitution that are not there. I agree we should make adherence to the Constitution our lodestar, but using misinterpretations or highly contentious readings of the Constitution to castigate and disparage someone, like Rush Limbaugh, who would be our ally is not productive or fair.

speaking of rights, can i call B.o Uncle Tomma Obomba?

"You would have to tell me of an "unreasonable search" conducted against a "person of the United States" to show a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I know of none."

Are you playing dumb, blind, or both... The tapped tens of thousands of communications a day, how could each have been reviewed by "judicial oversight"??? Are you referring to Alberto Gonzalez's approval of the taps, because he was never a judge.

According to this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html) the courts were clearly against the ordeal.

And according to this one (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-worthington/the-supreme-courts-guanta_b_106993.html) the SUPREME COURT ruled that guitmo prisoners DO have habeas corpus rights...

Like I said, dumb, blind, or both...

SpongeDaddy has it exactly right, though I would add that in the case of habeas corpus being suspended we have a double-wammy here: not only did the conditions not warrent it, the power to suspend resides with Congress - the people's representatives! - not the President.

To DocMcG, I'm afraid your head must be in the sand to not see it. For instance, have you not heard of extraordinary rendition?

I have not the time to go into all the cases, so I will focus on just the issue of war here, and for that I will simply refer to what I have already written on the subject: "Is the Iraq War Constitutional?"

SpongeDaddy has it exactly right, though I would add that in the case of habeas corpus being suspended we have a double-wammy here: not only did the conditions not warrent it, the power to suspend resides with Congress - the people's representatives! - not the President.

To DocMcG, I'm afraid your head must be in the sand to not see it. For instance, have you not heard of extraordinary rendition?

I have not the time to go into all the cases, so I will focus on just the issue of war here, and for that I will simply refer to what I have already written on the subject: "Is the Iraq War Constitutional?"

The supreme court has also decided that it is the arbiter of the Geneva Convention. And that things that explicitly apply to uniformed combatants, apply to non-uniformed combatants.

Just because the Supreme Court expands on something does not mean that somebody is "shredding" it in a sense everybody recognizes. That's just rhetoric. No American citizen was subject to "unusual punishment" even if waterboarding were torture. And as Doc pointed out, it wasn't administered as punishment.

It's a little suspicious that in order to have fidelity to the Constitution, I must buy every expansion of it. The other day Eric was deciding "honest" conservatives by those that were procedurally correct (as he defines it) from the beginning. Not those that simply admit to mistakes.

If one "shreds" a document, it is no longer there to resort to. Thus, had Bush "shredded" the 4th amendment, we would not even have had a general guarantee to be secure in our persons and affects as was largely the case during the Bush administrations--somebody might just be listening to your private phone conversations--kinda' like somebody--who remembers hiring--might be looking at your FBI file. But that nobody remembered hiring him was a kind of impasse for some reason.

Eric,

Your reading of the 69 Federalist leaves a little to be desired. Hamilton says this:
"First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor."

Thus the provision of the legislature is enough to give the president command. He already implies that this is inferior to monarchs', which it arguably is.

What was ratified is that Congress shall "declare war", thus that the President shall not always have use of the military is given in this. Not ratified was "everything Hamilton says in Federalist 69," which have to be interpreted in the light of their role as papers of advocacy. But the language used in the Cons., already separates presidents from kings, in that the president doesn't have endless power to make war. What I don't believe is necessary in this is that it has to comply with Hamilton's understanding in order to accomplish the end that the president did not have endless power to wage war--like a monarch.

You're probably right though, it would have been better for the President to require Congress to pass an official Declaration of War--but such things are not required by simple verbal phrase "declare war", however better. I don't get "unconstitutional" from this, just non-optimal. If the Congress cowardly conveys its power in a given instance to the president, it's still not like a monarch, as Hamilton points out in the first footnote, who needs fear no interference from parliament.

"I go to great pains to not confuse Elephant dung-colored glasses and Obama Derangement Syndrome with conservatism."

I'm not entirely sure who does Eric.

"It's a little suspicious that in order to have fidelity to the Constitution, I must buy every expansion of it. The other day Eric was deciding "honest" conservatives by those that were procedurally correct (as he defines it) from the beginning. Not those that simply admit to mistakes."

It would be helpful there, Sea King, if you specified that the "Eric" in question there was Mr. Wilds, not me.

Who said "shredded"? It certianly isn't in this thread. If I said it somewhere else I don't recall, and would admit it as rhetorical overstatement. I do believe that Bush (and the Congress) flagrantly violated the 4th Amendment.

Michael Steele had this right the first time. Mr. Limbaugh is just an entertainer. Beyond this he has no real influence over Republican party decisions what so ever. By focusing on a marginal figure the Democrats must be hoping to deflect criticism away from their performance to date.

Its obvious the Democrats hate Rush Limbaugh. Unless they can solve the problems with economy and the massive budget deficit there is a chance that the populace may find Mr. Limbaugh's message attractive.

The best course of action for the Democrats would be to focus their energies on fixing the economy and preventing more terrorist attacks in the United States. If they fail in either of these areas, especially fixing the economy, they will lose their majorities in Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant and a waste of time.

Perhaps Mr. Steele owed Mr. Limbaugh an apology for calling him "ugly" and "incendiary." He is no more or less of these things than many so called liberal commentators. Mr. Steele does not owe Mr. Limbaugh an apology for pointing out that Mr. Limbaugh is merely an entertaining and beyond this and his small following in the public has no real political influence what so ever.

The Democrats need to focus on solving real problems and not obsessing over unimportant entainers. In focusing on Mr. Limbaugh, the Democrats reveal themselves to be unserious about leadership. Unless this changes, their time in the majority will be very short lived.

As is deserved, Republicans have very little credibility with any thing right now. We are coming off of the worst Presidential Administration in American history. As such, the voters don't trust Republicans right now. This would be an excellent time for a third party to come forward right now.

In opposing Obama's budget, Republicans are showing that perhaps now finally they get it. Unless the Democrats get serious about leadership a Republican party who finally gets it or a third party will take their place in leadership after the next election. I hope the Democrats can come up with some better policies. America cannot afford more failed leadership.

Sorry about that Eric. I should have checked my facts. I have to admit that I get the two of mixed up some times. I'll be more diligent in the future.

Of course the irony of Steele's statement is that he said political commentator Rush Limbaugh--whose never been famous for anything but as political commentator--was an "entertainer" to an ex-standup and an ex-rapper.

That's really sort of funny when you think about it. Especially when the ex-standup said the Republicans are like the worst human liquidators on the planet because they're "divisive".

I've said to a number of libs that they must be confused that I wouldn't take offense to being compared to the agents of the slaughter of six million people. How is that civil to compare your political opponents to the agents of mass slaughter?

Hitler said he wanted all Jews who immigrated since 1918 deported from Germany. We haven't even asked that of the moonbat Marxists. Accusing your political opponent of the coldest atrocity in the history of man is actually something Hitler would have done (and basically did.).

Wanting Obama to fail is nothing. Nothing. Especially, as it is clear from the context that he hopes Obama fails at implementing his policies--not that his policies fail and hurt America.

Sea King,

Your argument boils down to this: As long as the President can conceivably reined in in his war making, he does not have monarchical powers, and therefore is acting within his Constitutional discretion. But this is absurd. Congress's "purse strings" and elections can rein in or stop a war (conceivably), but that has nothing to do with declaring war. What you seem to want is almost unbridled war making powers by simple virtue of the fact that we now have a standing army. That's just nonsense.

Further, your additional quote of Federalist 69 does nothing to undermine or extenuate my quote from it. In fact, it further establishes my argument, as the fact is that the President serves as Commander in Chief when the military is "called into the actual service of the Union."

You also conveniently ignore my quote of Madison in Federalist 41, arguing that the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war for sustained offensive military actions. As well as the historical pattern seen in our actual declarations of war -- which are fundamentally different in many ways from what we have done in the decades of movement toward our now nearly-unitary Executive.

But the fact of the matter is that the main body of my argument - in the linked article - rests on the clear text of the Constitution. I cited the Founders through link in support of my interpretation, but it is the text of the actual Constitution that is authoritative. And that text is clear. Article I Section 8 places power to declare war with Congress, not the President. Article II Section 2 specifies that the President is only Commander in Chief -- i.e. directing the military in war -- "when [our forces are] called into the actual service." The President is clearly NOT given the power to call the military into battle; that responsibility is emphatically left with the people's representatives in Congress.

In fact, in all of Article II, which concerns the powers of the President, only once is there mention of his powers related to the military and war, and it is that one just mentioned, clearly stating that he can exercise his role as Commander in Chief only after being called to it by the Congress. All other powers concerning the military --- "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies...; 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...; --- these powers all rest with the Congress, as stipulated in Article I Section 2.

The Bill of Rights further emphasizes the preeminent role of the Congress in affairs of the military, stating in the 2nd Amendment that Congress will ensure a "well regulated militia" (which, liberal revisionism to the contrary, actually means disciplining and training the militia to be ready in case called to the nation's defense; "well-regulating especially meaning able to shoot straight!), and in the 3rd Amendment quartering of soldiers IS permitted "in times of war", but only by congressional/legislative dictate (not executive), "as prescribed by law." Even the 5th Amendment has provisions conditioned in times of war, and therefore may only be circumscribed by will of people as expressed in Congress.

But the major point is this: the preeminent power in matters of war and most everything else, resides in the people (see, e.g., Amendment X). And that is expressed primarily through the Legislative Branch, as we see in the very fact of Article I being Article I and the delegated powers being expressed there in. The only war-related power outside the Congress is expressed in Article II Section 2 for the President - and that in itself attenuated by condition of Congress's previous declaration "calling [the military] into the actual service of the United States."

What all this clearly does NOT allow for is unilateral offensive war action by the President OR the relinquishing of their constitutional authority and responsibility by the Congress, no matter what toothless but impressive sounding "conditions" Congress passes in a resolution. Any way you cut it, the Iraq War was unconstitutional.

"The best course of action for the Democrats would be to focus their energies on fixing the economy..."

Isn't that the problem though? The whole "vision of the annointed" thing? There is a whole lot to be said for the virtures of laissez-faire - esp. compared to the central planning the State is now involved in.

adujsqi,

You are partially right. I am dumb and blind to arguments that use the liberal members of the Supreme Court as ultimate authorities about what the Constitution means. If I weren't, I would have to believe ridiculous things; things such as "there is a generalized right to privacy in the Constitution" or that "the Constitution gives the federal government complete power to make laws about drug use." That Rush Limbaugh does not agree with Ruth Bader Ginsberg is evidence of his intelligence about the Constitution.

Eric,

All the members of the Supreme Court who care about original intent (that is who care more about what the Constitution means than about what the Washington Post thinks about them) denied that detaining prisoners at Guantanemo required a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. All the precedent was on their side. And what provision of the Constitution do you distort to support the propostion that extraordinary renditions are unconstitutional?--I really can't imagine.

I have read your blog post "Is the Iraq War Constitutional?" and it parses eighteenth century phrases, without providing context from that period, to try to make a case that fighting in places like Iraq is unconstitutional unless war is declared. We don't need to parse words. We have the continual history of the country from the "shores of Tripoli" (and even earlier in the undeclared war with France of the 1790's) through Gulf War I that undermines your idiosyncratic interpretation of these phrases.

Sponge and you other true conservatives out there:

Notice how the fundamentalist libertarians treat the Constitution the same way lberals do--as something they and their allies on the Supreme Court authoritatively interpret to mean things never intended.

"... to castigate and disparage someone, like Rush Limbaugh, who would be our ally is not productive or fair."

A couple things: 1) I actually appreciate much about Limbaugh; he is certainly much better than most other radio talk show hosts, esp. windbags like Hannity and the insufferable likes of Savage. His ability to rally the grassroots on key issues is good and important, such as against Harriet Miers and McCain's immigration bill, and now against Obama's euro-socialist plan.

2) That said, he is not by any means above reproach, and when he is wrong on something fundamental it is both our duty AND productive to so criticize him. Nor is it unfair to do so when the record is what it is.

"Notice how the fundamentalist libertarians treat the Constitution the same way lberals do..."

Really?! And just who was it here talkling about expanding the meaning of the Constitution?

"We have the continual history of the country from the "shores of Tripoli" (and even earlier in the undeclared war with France of the 1790's) through Gulf War I..." Gulf War I, like Vietnam and Korea before, was unconstitutional, for the same reasons I laid out above and in my post. Korea, Gulf I and Iraq also fail the constitutionality test for their appeal to United Nations authority for making war.

BTW, in case of the Barbary Wars, it was indeed the Congress that authorized *and directed* the President to wage a limited war, specifically to seize all Tripolitan vessels on the seas "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." And this was done after war was declared upon us. As I said in my post, a formal, capital "D" declaration of war is not always necessary, but the essential form, of Congress directing the President to action and not simply abdicating its responsibilities, is essential. In this it was still the Congress that called the military to action and directed the President to wage war (whether or not the Presdient requested such authority - as is usually the case and certainly was here and in this case and WWI & II is immaterial). *At that point* the President acts as THE Commander in Chief, so that the waging of war and lines of command are clear and engaged in one voice.

In no way does that parallel the Iraq War.

Doc, we are simpatico, baby! --of course I mean on the idea that libertarians are just like liberals on the Constitution--not that you are a socialist sympathetic like I am.

Not only that, but I find that they both treat the Cons as if it were The Plan of the Nation. And not a plan to structure government so that the people's interest may be pursued. They both wrest power out of the hands of governed and put it in the hands of the experts.

Eric,

The Congress deserves every castigation for not making a clear war declaration--and that it was a Republican Congress is not lost on me. But I don't see how it makes it a constitutional case when a spineless Congress abdicates its responsibility.

Your quote of 41 adds nothing to your case, as 41 argues about who better to provide defense: existing states or proposed federal government. But there is also a whole pragmatic section in 41, whose implication you fail to note.

That a "cool and candid" people understanding the that "the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them", and should resist the over-subtle alarmist ("It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation" -- and he didn't mean "subtlety" in a positive sense, either).

In addition, there is a good portion of the letter spent on how the proposed Constitution is the best guard against the "standing army" that the alarmists warn of. We have pretty much botched that many times over if we have to interpret the power of Congress to raise an army in the context of the suggested absence of standing armies. Because we have a standing army--the good thing is that we have not yet seen it to be anything like what the anti-federalists feared. And if the power to raise an army were needed each time we went to war--we would not survive in a world where it's no longer a month-long trip to meddle in our hemisphere.

The idea was not to be for or against standing armies, but to argue that if it were the will of the people not to have standing armies, the Cons provided it. There's a sort of salesmanship going on in these letters. The point is that the president is not a monarch, not that he follows the distinctions that Hamilton sets out as HOW he is not a monarch.

My last argument is that the elastic clause gives Congress the power to make "all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", I don't see how "the president gets to pick this time" falls outside of that power, as they are simply declaring war in another fashion. The president is no more at liberty to pick fights with other nations, than otherwise. If Congress has to have input, then Congress has to have input.

All that stuff about standing army's is beside the point; Congress can keep an army going, but not appropriate for such more than two years out. Great, but irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality of the war. The fact of the matter is that your rubric, and that followed now for that past few decades, places no practical obstacle to the President acting like a monarch when it comes ot making war. A bit of formality, but no real stops whenever the President whims the use of offensive force of war against sovereign nations.

You have failed to address the text and logic of the Constitution, on which I based my argument. And note that it is you making liberal use of the so-called "elastic clause" here, not me. The Constitution is meant to pout shackles on power, to check it against man's natural corruption in its use. Be advocating we follow it stictly I also advocate that the amendment process be used if the restrictions get in the way of the *considered* will of the people. Pulling that elastic rubber band is more akin to the mob rule the Founders abhorred - and definitely opposed to the rule of law they treasured. As President Washington put it in his Farewell Address, the Constitution loses its power as the glue of national unity and well-being if it is overrun by the "spirit of innovation" and "alteration" brought on by momentary passions that circumvent the Constitution's "provision for its own amendment."

"...the good thing is that we have not yet seen it to be anything like what the anti-federalists feared..."

Really? You think they would be pleased that American boys and men (and now, disgustingly, women and girls, too) are marched all over the world, permanently stationed in well over 100 countries, engaged in war activities pretty much every year to one degree or another for the past several decades, and -- especially in recent years -- are "ever searching for monsters to destroy"?! Even the most nationalist of the Federalists would be aghast at our constant warring -- and all without the people's representatives ever declaring war as the Constitution prescribes.

"I am dumb and blind to arguments that use the liberal members of the Supreme Court as ultimate authorities about what the Constitution means."

HA! If you don't like it you can just geeet out, because the courts decisions are based on the opinion of a body of judges, not just 'liberal (*activist)' judges...

*I know what you really mean, I have heard the mindless conservative talking points before.

As well..."Whether or not water-boarding is torture, it was not administered as punishment and therefore would not fall under Eighth Amendment restrictions."

Although it may not fall under #8, it is considered a war crime under the Geneva Convention. The code of conduct set out by the convention is a treaty. As you know, Article VI, clause 2 declares that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Land..."

So therefore water boarding is in direct contridiction to Article VI of the constitution, making it UNconstitutional

Eric F. Langborgh,

Your responses have made me quite curious about one thing that perhaps I missed. What do you perceive as the constitutionally significant difference between Congressional authorization of force in the action against the Barbary pirates and the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Military Force in Iraq and what text do you have from the Constitution, or from contemporaneous authoritative explications of it, that support your assertion that the difference is constitutionally significant?

adjusqi,

Your logic is amazing. Since the laws of the United States are also covered under Article VI, I guess you must say that any illegal act is an unconstitutional act, too. You rival Bill Clinton in your sophistry.

DocMcG (you don’t mind if I address you by your full name, do you?),

I already explained what was wrong with the "authorization" in my blog post, previously linked well above. The difference has to do with who makes the decision to go to war. In the case of the Barbary Wars, the Congress clearly directed their intent. In the case of Iraq, Congress washed its hands of its responsibility, Pilate-style.

(And, btw, practically this makes a huge difference in the conduct - and often the outcome - of the war. Constitutional wars have one clear leader, the President, directing the conduct of the war, with Congress having already directed the President to assume his war powers while they have pledged the full might and resources of the United States to the effort - or, in those of more limited objective, the requisite resources -- to win. Unconstitutional forays like those of past several decades and in Iraq have a never-ending chorus of second-guessers in Congress, "535 would-be generals" as I've put it, who like john Kerry can be both for and against a war and talk out of both sides of their mouths, never committing one way or another, and a nation that is not behind the effort either, as the war was not responsibly and decisively decided and committed to by the people's representatives in Congress. For more on this subject, see my "Unconstitutional Wars are Lonely Ones for Our Troops" and "535 Generals Marching Towards Disaster in Iraq".

Because I am not infinite in time or energy - or knowledge, quite frankly - I've chosen here to focus on just the issue of the war's constitutionality. I have many disagreements with this "adujsqi" person, at least as to why some practice was/is unconstitutional or wrong. Though in some cases I agree that they *are* unconstitutional - or at very least - repugnant to a liberty-loving people, though for different reasons than he gives, perhaps. Let me recommend, then, that those interested read Judge Andrew Napolitano's books: "Nation of Sheep" and "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws" and "The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land."

Eric: "All that stuff about standing army's is beside the point;"

No. It's precisely illustrative of the point that I'm trying to make. A good portion of Federalist 41 is precisely about standing armies. And when it's talking about the power to declare war, it is making a point about central as opposed to state.

And you're missing the parallel of Congress' power to raise armies in regard to the "goal" of no standing armies. You could argue that by keeping standing armies, Congress has been flouting its duty to raise them. After all, Federalist 41 demonstrates that it was the purpose of the Constitution to avoid standing armies.

And that's part of your point as well. You wrote how a standing army contributes to the President's ability to make war like a monarch. So if Congress has to raise an army for each conflict, then it would even further restrict the executive's ability to make war.

There's also the point that you refuse to acknowledge is that if the Congress is complicit in the president's war-making then the president is not making war like a monarch, who has no need or parliament's approval--nor as Hamilton's footnote argues in 69, are they allowed to impede him in this matter.

Also I'm not saying nothing bad has ever happened with standing armies, I'm just saying the idea that an executive leader has not happened, and this was the fear that the anti-federalists had.

One thing truly bothers me about water boarding.

In the past we have lamented the cruel methods of torture and punishment meted out by other countries.

As a nation, we have always stood up to nations that use said practices, like McCain endured in Vietnam. We have always lamented about freedom and human rights.

Much of the world looked to us as the big kid on the block who always did the right thing and stood up to the bullies.

Thanks to water boarding, we have lost our moral high ground.

Never again do I wish to hear Rush or his ilk profess about how other nations do this and others do that.

Many of us claim judeo-christian principles. Is torturing someone a golden rule principle, or more Machiavellian or existentialist?

Again, this is just my opinion.

Be well,

Sponge

Sponge,

If I were a person who had been brainwashed or otherwise twisted by others, and I became complicit in a conspiracy to perform a terrorist act that would kill thousands of innocents, and I had information that could stop that act, I would hope someone would have the guts and the moral virtue to subject me to waterboarding to obtain the information.

Can I do unto others as I would have done unto me?

"like McCain endured in Vietnam"

McCain cannot life his arms to his shoulders because the shoulders were almost daily torn out of their sockets. Water boarding is NOT like the torture McCain endured in Vietnam.

"Like" covers a lot of ground, and so in truth I can't even be as absolute as I am above. None the less there are some very real differences. Differences always need to be included in any consideration of "like".

Here's another thing: not everybody considers it torture--kind of like everybody is allowed to make up their mind on whether or not abortion is "like" murder especially when it ends the life of a human-shaped entity. Even some of the "pro-choice" are up in the air about whether it's murder, but are willing to let whoever define it as murder if they will.

One ends a life, and you're allowed to make up your mind what it is. The other one creates an instance of extreme panic, and perhaps even emotional scarring, and you're not allowed to decide for yourself what it is. The terminal action is allowed as a daily occurrence, the non-terminal not even as a method of saving lives in extreme cases.

Had the Vietnamese waterboarded John McCain, they might have even broken him, had he survived the Vietnam war, he might have full use of his arms, and not a memory of daily torture.

Doc and Sea King, you both make very good points.

The subject is open for debate, and you two are probably correct, but as an American-I don't know how to describe it-this just does not seem like something we should be doing.

To sound like the far left and use the verb "feel."

This just "feels" like we got a "little pregnant" with the whole mess.

Intellectually, you folks are probably right, but I just can't shake that nagging "feeling."

Be well,

Sponge

I'm getting in here now a bit late to the party, but I'm curious about this.

There are many more in this category, but these are the last two military engagements authorized by Congress:

2001 war in Afghanistan, aka Operation Enduring Freedom
S.J. Res. 23 - September 14, 2001
Authorized: Senate 98-0; House 420-1

Iraq War, aka Operation Iraqi Freedom
H.J. Res. 114 - October 16, 2002
Authorized: Senate 77-23; House 296-133

Can I get an education here? Why are these not Constitutional?

No time today to respond Sea King above - but I will. In response to ASDF, read the link I provided long ago, plus my later comments.

“One thing truly bothers me about water boarding.

In the past we have lamented the cruel methods of torture and punishment meted out by other countries.

As a nation, we have always stood up to nations that use said practices, like McCain endured in Vietnam. We have always lamented about freedom and human rights.

Much of the world looked to us as the big kid on the block who always did the right thing and stood up to the bullies.

Thanks to water boarding, we have lost our moral high ground.”

Sponge, in a perfect peaceful and righteous world, there would be no need for torture or interrogation techniques of any kind. But I don’t need to tell you that that is not the way it is and it’s been only recently since the United States has had any conscience about that stuff.

By making a statement about us being the big kid on the block who always did the right thing and you’re comments about water boarding, you sound naïve.

We have typically been the big kid on the block but often times have not done the right thing. At least when it comes to measures of brutality.

Two most recent examples are WWII and Viet Nam. Atrocities and torture perpetrated by the United States in both conflicts would make what’s happening (and has happened) in Afghanistan and Iraq look tame.

It could easily be argued that the reason we've maintained our standing as the big kid on the block is that we will act with extreme prejudice and do what is necessary to win, especially as many foes only understand varying degrees of brutality.

ASDF,

Naive is a bit harsh, but I will settle for blind idealist, lol.

Points taken.

Be well,

Sponge

I didn't mean it that way so I'll go with that. No offense Sponge.

Sea King,

Let me start off here by saying that, despite our disagreement, it is refreshing to engage with someone who actually engages an argument seriously, and who seeks to understand the other's position by actually reading it. That is what I expect at a site like Flynn Files, but even here that isn't always evident. You've debated me seriously and respectfully, and for that I am grateful.

I should note here that my only comment several above re: standing armies was not at all meant in support of my position. I only brought it up in my reiteration of what I found *your* argument to be based on ("What you seem to want is almost unbridled war-making powers by simple virtue of the fact that we now have a standing army."). It really is beside the point *I* was making.

I should also note, since you bring it up in your latest response to me, that I respectfully think you are misreading what Madison is saying re: standing armies in Federalist 41. Read again esp. paragraphs 12 and 13. Madison does speak of the potential dangers of having a standing army, but also the greater danger of not having one in light of foreign threats that do have ready and trained soldiers which may aggress against us. "If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions." And again, "A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision." Madison clearly speaks of how the Constitution -- in 1) strengthening the Union (and thus avoiding the need of several completely independent states of rearing their own armies and thus threatening perpetual Europe-style wars on this continent), and 2) in mandating that appropriations for the military can only be for two year increments max -- guards against the danger of having a standing army while providing for our defense against foreign attack and conquest.

But I digress, for that is getting afield from the conversation at hand. Again, the main point on that subject as it relates to the present war powers discussion is that it doesn't play into my argument one way or another.

What does is Federalist 41 taken as a whole. Outside of the standing armies issue, I want you to know I actually agree with you about the main context of the paper: in your words, "it is making a point about central as opposed to state."

I also want to amend my use of a quote from Federalist 41 on my blog re: the Constitutionality of wars like Iraq. I had quoted the section "Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative." etc. Your forcing me to read this paper again and a bit closer leads me to conclude that that quote doesn't prove what I was trying to prove -- at least not directly.

Still, I would now say it does do so indirectly, and so I want to now argue thusly: The main point of the paper is indeed as you say. But the presumption throughout the whole of the letter, as it concerns those powers it mentions that have been delegated to the Federal government are LEGISLATIVE -- and *not* Executive. First, every one mentioned is found in Article I Section 8; none pertain to anything in Section II, which concerns Executive power. (For interest of time and space, I won't bother reciting them here.)

Second, and much more to the point and explicitly, Madison says exactly which branch of government he has in mind in his foregoing argument, as he nears his conclusion in the third to last paragraph: "Had no other enumeration or definition of THE POWERS OF CONGRESS been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited ... it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing AN AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE in all possible cases..." (emphases mine).

Finally, and this is related to the first, Madison concludes by explaining that everything he just discussed is really no different than what it had been in the Articles of Confederation, thereby quoting it to demonstrate the parallelism to prove his point. Under the Articles the Executive was very weak. Madison is showing here, at least implicitly, that the powers under discussion -- including that of which I quoted previously "the power of declaring war" -- are reserved to the Legislative Branch, despite a strengthened Executive.

Again, as I had argued in my previously linked blog post ("Is the Iraq War Constitutional?") and at greater length in this regard above, the text of the Constitution, including the contextual construction of said document, is what I fundamentally base my argument on. I cited The Federalist for support, but the body of the Constitution proves the point amply enough. To quote myself above:

Article I Section 8 places power to declare war with Congress, not the President. Article II Section 2 specifies that the President is only Commander in Chief -- i.e. directing the military in war -- "when [our forces are] called into the actual service." The President is clearly NOT given the power to call the military into battle; that responsibility is emphatically left with the people's representatives in Congress.
In fact, in all of Article II, which concerns the powers of the President, only once is there mention of his powers related to the military and war ... clearly stating that he can exercise his role as Commander in Chief only after being called to it by the Congress. All other powers concerning the military ... rest with the Congress, as stipulated in Article I Section 2.
…
But the major point is this: the preeminent power in matters of war and most everything else, resides in the people (see, e.g., Amendment X). And that is expressed primarily through the Legislative Branch, as we see in the very fact of Article I being Article I and the delegated powers being expressed therein. The only war-related power outside the Congress is expressed in Article II Section 2 for the President - and that in itself attenuated by condition of Congress's previous declaration "calling [the military] into the actual service of the United States."
What all this clearly does NOT allow for is unilateral offensive war action by the President OR the relinquishing of their constitutional authority and responsibility by the Congress, no matter what toothless but impressive sounding "conditions" Congress passes in a resolution. Any way you cut it, the Iraq War was unconstitutional.

Incidentally, to make one further comment here on Federalist 41, Madison clearly strikes a blow against those who want to be overly elastic with the clause about providing for "the common defense and common welfare". He explains in the second to last paragraph that the very use of a semi colon "separating" that clause and the enumerated powers subsequently listed means that the enumerated powers are what give meaning to the clause! Meaning that the list is itself the constitutional prescription for providing such -- nothing else! It can be neither necessary nor proper for Congress to relinquish its constitutional responsibilities and power to another branch of government. Both the liberals and the neocons stand thus thwarted in their loose construction of the Constitution. (As I've written elsewhere, what neo-cons and other hawking conservatives are really doing here is arguing for a "living constitution." They just abandon textualism and original intent for guns instead of butter.)

As it concerns us here, a declaration of war is a fundamentally legislative act that must be carried out by the people's representatives in Congress, according to Madison and the Constitution. For Congress to punt this responsibility and say to the President "you decide" is both a dereliction of duty and unconstitutional, by definition. As I said above, war resolutions that do such "place no practical obstacle to the President acting like a monarch when it comes to making war. A bit of formality, but no real stops whenever the President whims the use of offensive force of war against sovereign nations." (Ron Paul makes that point very well in this short video clip, btw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfS79EbKtTU.)

Your protestations re: Federalist 69 aside, the fact of the matter is that what Hamilton said he said, and the context -- and the footnote -- do nothing to change the fact that whatever other ways the President differs from the British monarch in his role as commander in chief, he most certainly also differs (I would argue *especially* differs, in that it didn't get footnote treatment) in his impotence under the Constitution when it comes to "the declaring of war." The President is no more permitted to do this than when it comes to "the raising and regulating of fleets and armies." (Indeed, imagine how clearly unconstitutional it would be for the Congress to pass a resolution stating the President may institute a draft if he so deems it necessary! Or, since wars and army-building both involve spending money, saying the President may raise taxes and appropriate funds if he thinks it best!) All these ways in which the President under the Constitution differs from the Monarch, Hamilton says, as if to emphasize the fact, "would appertain to the legislature." That's immediate, clear context. And it is consistent with what any reasonable reading of the Constitution alone should lead one to conclude.

With all that, I rest my case. I hope this was fruitful to others -- it certainly was to me, thus sharpening my thinking. My thanks especially to Sea King for his considered and informed challenge. I am better for it, even if we don't end up in agreement. If I can find the time and effort, I may further refine my argument concerning the Constitution and war powers by summarizing my points made here and in previous posts into one post at my blog, and thus hopefully make more clear and easier to follow than a comment thread like this allows. Someday soon, I hope.

Respectfully yours, Eric.