May 28, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Most people ignorantly refer to our political system as a democracy although this word is not in the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any document given to us by our Founding Fathers. Our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag identifies our form of government as a republic.
Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1759, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” A republic has seven major components each specifically designed to keep it from becoming a democracy as democracy eventually destroys liberty.
First, the importance of majority rules is recognized but limited. Is the majority always right? No! Mother made this point when her teenager asked to smoke marijuana on the basis that everyone was smoking it. “If everyone jumped off a bridge would you?”
Second, minority rights (less than 50%) are protected from the majority. In Franklin’s analogy the lamb had the right to exist even if the majority, the wolves, said differently. A lynch mob is a democracy, everyone votes but the one being lynched. Even if caught in the act of a crime the defendant is entitled to the protection of law, a judge, jury, witnesses for his defense, and a lawyer to argue his innocence; all necessary but expensive. Then, if found guilty, hanged. Because democracy only considers majority rules it is much less expensive. A rope tossed over a tree limb will do.
Third, a republic is based upon natural inalienable rights first acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence. This document asserted to the world that we acknowledge that humans have rights from a source higher than mere man. A reference to deity is mentioned five times. If there is no God there can be no inalienable rights coming from him and we are left with man as God. What man is good enough?
Fourth, a republic emphasizes individual differences rather than absolute equality, as democracy does. We are not equal, even from the womb, and never will be if equality means sameness. One baby with a cleft pallet needs three surgeries to look normal. Some come out of the womb with a laptop, others with a basketball, and the real tough deliveries are those bringing their golf clubs. One of my first great insights in life was that everyone was better at everything than I. The second was that life is not fair and never will be. Free men are not equal and equal men are not free. Genetics makes one fat, another bald, and gives yet another terminal cancer in his youth.
Even economically it is not possible to be equal. Should I give each student a million dollars in exchange for everything they now own, shave their heads, and give them identical uniforms, to approximate sameness as much as possible, with the only requirement that they return in five years with some ledger of net worth. Would they be the same in what was left of the million? No! Why does government try so hard to do what is impossible? A republic, unlike a democracy, looks upon our differences as assets.
Fifth, limited government is also a major aspect of a republic. Centralized government is good so long as it remembers that when it oversteps its bounds it becomes the greatest obstacle to liberty as it pulls decision-making power away from the individual. Excessive government, as the cause of the American Revolution, is never forgotten. The Constitution as created handcuffed the government from dominating our lives by listing the powers of the federal government (Article I, Section 8). The Founders understood that the more government at the top the less at the bottom and that was the opposite of freedom.
Sixth, a republic has frequent elections with options. Frequent elections happen in some socialist countries, so this alone does not ensure liberty. In fact, it may be somewhat deceiving as it fosters the notion that we choose, thus deserve, our elected officers. It also assumes that the people are correctly informed, which assumes a free press and equal access to all information. The part of the phrase “with options” is the part that ensures liberty. Elections under socialism provide choices but often no options when all participants are from the same party.
Seventh, there is a healthy fear of the emotion of the masses and of its potential to destabilize natural law upon which real freedom is based, as for example the notion that some one else’s wealth belongs to them. Such destroys freedom as it had in Athens and Rome. We need a caring, sensitive, compassionate government but emotion must not be allowed to overwhelm reason and time-tested natural law constants. Aristotle taught that the poor will always envy the rich and the rich will always have contempt for the poor. A republic will not allow the poor to destroy the rich in their quest for the wealth of the rich, but does incentivize the poor to increase their wealth thus becoming the middle class, which in time become the largest body.
As explained, democracy does not protect liberty. In Ben Franklin’s analogy it would have allowed the wolves to have eaten the lamb simply because the lamb had been outvoted. No wonder our Founders rejected democracy in favor of a republic.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
May 22, 2018 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
We drove down a quiet country road, trees and green meadows in every direction. Mount Carmel, the famous Branch Davidian compound/church, was a sharp turn to the right. Gone was the mailbox at the entrance with Branch Davidian Church clearly written on it in big black letters where the once 100-plus residents of a devout break-off of the Seventh-day Adventist Church received their mail.
Once on the grounds, we were met with two simple memorials each telling us that something very significant and violent had happened here; one to the four ATF agents killed in the February 28, government raid. A few feet away was a shrine of sorts with a name on a plague for each of the 76 Davidians (19 men, 34 women, 23 children) who lost their lives in the fiery furnace in their place of residence 25 years ago, April 19, 1993. Sympathetic visitors had left money on one of the shrines.
A gravel road, less than a fourth of a mile long, lay in front with a couple of buildings to the right. The second of which was the home of the only actual Branch Davidian a part of the group now available, disaffected at the time of the raid, but now the minister of the sect now renamed The Branch. The road wound down curving to the left and ending in front of a newly built chapel placed on the exact same corner as once stood the chapel part of the Branch Davidian structure; the double entrance door precisely placed where the original double doors once were. Davidians argued that bullet holes in them came from outside and ATF agents that they came from inside. This would prove the origins of the assault, but the doors have disappeared. The famous structure was gone but cement foundation remnants were still clearly visible.
It was hard to imagine Abram tanks encircling the building running over trikes and bikes of the children destroying all in their path where now a freshly planted garden exists. Is this the place where military helicopters at one time sprayed bullets into a church/home? Dick De Guerin, David Koresh’s lawyer, who spent 30 hours in the compound during the 51-day seize, told Dianne Sawyer of ABC News, of bullet holes in the ceiling—one presumably wounding David Koresh himself (Harold Pease, The Waco Massacre: We Did It For The Children, video, 1994)
Was this really the site of loud music being played at night, presumably to frighten the residents, sometimes accompanied with sounds of squealing rabbits being slaughtered? Most chilling was probably the lyrics of Nancy Sinatra’s song frequently played, “These boots are made for walking, and that’s just what they’ll do. One of these days, these boots will walk all over you.” And, “You keep playin’ where you shouldn’t be playin,’ and you keep thinkin’ that you’ll never get burnt. Ah, I’ve just got me a brand new box of matches, yeah and “ what he knows you ain’t had time to learn.” Really!?!
A Congressional investigation identified incendiary devices on the property suggesting the government started the fire, not the Davidians as the government and their complacent media asserted. With winds blowing through the structure all life was destroyed within 20 minutes, including the little children, yet today only Branch Davidians have served jail sentences (Waco: Rules of Engagement, Congressional Investigation, video, 1997). At the trial of survivors many felt the wrong people were on trial.
Was this really the place where deadly CS gas was pumped into the complex for two hours? The vast majority breathing the poisonous gas were mothers and children. It hardly seemed possible. Now birds chirp away and the grassy meadow gives the place exquisite serenity.
Is this the place where FBI snipers were shooting Branch Davidians as they tried to escape a certain fiery death, presumably to burn and erase all evidence of their blunderous, even unlawful, conduct, as alleged? In the dining room of the Davidian complex at least 17 bodies had bullet holes in them. Subsequently empty cartridge shells have been found in one of the three-sniper positions now known to exist in the back of the complex. Is this the place where many of the children were taken into the church’s cement record vault room (referred to as the bunker) to escape the fire, which new evidence reveals was penetrated from above by a military explosive device, probably immediately killing the mothers and children huddled together inside (Video, “Waco: A New Revelation,” 2011)?
A new Branch member, serving a caretaker role over the property, told me of federal agents returning to the scene asking forgiveness. One sorrowful agent admitted to having assisted the snipers with a telescope. The caretaker ended saying, “There will be others.”
Video coverage show tanks with mounted U.S. flags attacking citizens also flying a U.S. flag in front of their burning church/home. How is this possible? Shown also are helicopters with mounted machine guns and the use of Delta Force personnel on the property. How can anyone believe that this happened in America in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act forbidding the military any function in law enforcement? Yet the evidence is overwhelming that it did, in this now quiet, serene, and beautifully “meadowed” environment with birds chirping the sounds of peace 25 years later?
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
May 15, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease
In electoral contests today almost everyone, in both major political parties, advocate democracy but our Founding Fathers ran from the word as fast as they could advocating instead a republic. We need to do the same if we really understand liberty. Those using the term “democracy” either intentionally use the term to undermine individual liberty or show themselves as ignorant of the basics of our government. In either case, we are wise to reject them in preference to candidates rejecting democracy.
Given our continual drift from a republic to a democracy, it might be well to review what historical philosophies most favored democracy as a form of government. The Founding Fathers and the socialists were total opposites on the word democracy, one distained; the other loved.
Of those who favored democracy: the most blunt was Karl Marx, the father of communism (the most violent form of socialism). He wrote, “Democracy is the road to socialism,” implying that one cannot have socialism without first having democracy.
Vladimir Lenin, the socialist revolutionary bringing it to Russia, agreed. In his 1905 work, Two Tactics of Social Democracy, he saw democracy as a strategy leading to his desired socialist revolution. “Social-Democracy, however, wants, … to develop the class struggle of the proletariat to the point where the latter will take the leading part in the popular Russian revolution, i.e., will lead this revolution to the democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.” In a letter to Inessa Armand in 1916, he added, “We Social-Democrats always stand for democracy, not ‘in the name of capitalism,’ but in the name of clearing the path for our movement, which clearing is impossible without the development of capitalism.” Class conflict and the philosophy “share the wealth” were, and remain, central to the empowerment of communism.
Those who abhorred democracy: as far as we are able to ascertain, included all the Founding Fathers. Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1759, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Years later, when Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention, a woman inquired of him, “What form of government have you left us?” the brilliant Franklin answered, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The phrase expressed some doubt as to whether man could understand the value of a republic enough to protect it from becoming a democracy.
So, once again, what is wrong with democracy? James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in his Federalist Paper, No. 10, wrote, “In a pure democracy, there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” Thomas Jefferson agreed but was more blunt; “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” On another occasion he reasoned that the Republic would “cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson’s supposed political archrival, saw it similarly. “We are now forming a republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship.”
Now we understand why the word democracy is not found in any of our original founding documents, not even in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Our system, a republic, protects us from the less informed masses, which is always the majority. This is why, until the perversion of the Constitution by the 17th Amendment, the state legislature selected their two U.S. Senators—not the people. This is why the Electoral College selects the president and why the people have no voice in the selection of Supreme Court members.
If one calls this undemocratic the Founders would agree. Their review of history showed them that democracy in Athens and Rome led to tyranny by the majority that then destroyed liberty in both places.
Recent census reports show about half of our adult population pay no federal income tax. When that number exceeds 50% we will join the fallen republics of Athens and Rome with their “bread and circuses” as examples of the majority voting to feed their wants from those who produce. When the “rich” are destroyed by socialism, as in the former USSR, and cannot provide the customary free stuff any more, the majority, who came to believe that it was owed them, take to the streets in anger. The majority will then vote for whatever tyrant promises them security. This historical record is clear.
This is why socialists and communists loved democracy and the Founders decidedly did not!! Alexis de Tocqueville, a visiting French philosopher in 1840, is alleged to have told us when our republic would fall. “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the ‘publics’ money.” We are unable to document the quote so, if not actually said by him, I now say it and am happy to be quoted hereafter. That day is today. Both parties must return to the Constitution, which preserves the republic, or we will lose both the republic and the Constitution. A good start is to avoid political candidates advocating democracy.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
May 7, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
With election signs everywhere it is well to note that it is unrealistic to expect national candidates to follow the Constitution when we did not insist that they did so in local and state elections. After all, many simply move up to higher office. Some may even view the Constitution as irrelevant at these levels.
Several years ago at a public debate for county supervisor in California the public was invited to offer written questions. I did so and watched the debate monitor, with a puzzled look on his face, sideline my question in preference to others. I presumed it was because it raised a constitutional concern, which unfortunately, is considered by many an irrelevant topic at the city, county, or even state levels. You are supposed to ask what “goodies” from taxpayer funding are you going to give me and is it more than your opponent?
So what does the Constitution have to do with local or state issues? Everything!! First, it is the only document that every elected public servant swears by oath to uphold. So the Founders must have thought it relevant at lower levels.
Second, candidates at lower levels successfully rise to higher levels because of the name recognition obtained at lower levels and eventually become members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, often without ever having read the Constitution they are specifically under oath to protect. When I worked as a legislative assistant in the U.S. Senate years ago, I was certain at least 50% had never read it at any level of government. Today I would be surprised if those who had read it exceeded 10%. No one asks candidates while campaigning when they last read it.
So again, why does this matter? Historically, the two major enemies of freedom are: 1) it is the nature of all governments to pull decision making power upward to the seat of government and, 2) the more apathetic and indifferent the population becomes the greater the tendency of the people to push decision making power upwards to the seat of government. When these two forces work together it always leads to the central government eventually having most of the power. The Constitution is full of “handcuffs” to keep decision-making power from getting to the top thus maximizing it with the individual. The Founders overriding philosophy of government, if it could be penned into one sentence, was, “never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level.”
Even a casual look at the Constitution reveals the separation of powers on the federal level into three distinct branches the legislative, executive, and judicial—each with a specific list. For Congress it was a list of the four types of law they could make (Art. I, Sec. 8), for the president it was the types of executive functions he could execute (Art. II, Sec. 2-3), and for the Supreme Court the types of cases it could adjudicate (Art. III, Sec. 2). The lists exist to both restrict them and to prohibit the concentration of power into one branch. The only type of federal government authorized by the Founders was decidedly a limited one. States, counties, and cities have all the powers not listed, as per Amendment 10.
When these limitations are not understood and protected at lower levels of government, the federal government is constantly tempted to steal authority from the states or counties as per its confiscating, environmental, health, and education issues, which are constitutionally 100% non-federal government issues. States, counties, and cities should use the Tenth Amendment to tell the federal government to “butt out.” “You have no constitutional authority.” When Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the National Defense Authorization Act, December 31, 2012, both states and counties should have written Congress and the President. “You may not void Amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8, of The Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus for our citizens.”
Sixty years ago it may not have made much difference if a county supervisor/commissioner, or city councilman, swore allegiance to a Constitution that he had not fully studied, or worse, even read. The federal government had not yet absorbed his area of jurisdiction. Now it has! There is hardly an area where the federal government does not have its tentacles embedded, from school lunches to cross gender bathrooms. Over thirty years ago a city councilman complained to me that a third of what he voted on was already mandated because sometime in the past the council had accepted the “free money” which now obligated him. School districts are notorious for having done the same thing.
City, county, and state leaders, you are our buffer from the federal government taking from you your areas of jurisdiction. They have done so for many years because you were complacent, or ignorant of the Constitution. Consequently you have lost a large portion of our liberty. Today your understanding of the document must be known BEFORE we place you in power.
This election let us find leaders with constitutional fire in their bellies to undo the precedents that their predecessors created. All issues on the city and county levels are directly or indirectly constitutional issues. We now expect leaders to know, and abide by, the document that they swear to uphold.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 30, 2018 | Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Voters might be confused by the difference between a caucus and a primary, each state offering one or the other to find the right contenders for the general election in November. We will treat both.
In a primary the overriding principle is that everyone should vote regardless of how informed or ill-informed one is. Television is the major—often the only—source of information for older voters and social media for younger voters. Neither source by itself is enough. Candidates can submit a word statement, often a paragraph, promoting themselves on the ballot, but rarely is enough given for voters to make an intelligent choice. This is the only free coverage allowed a candidate. Candidates seeking the office of judge rarely leave any information on the ballot from which to evaluate them. Many voters just guess.
In a primary voting choice may be but a whim. There exists nothing to protect us from the non-informed. One giving only 10 seconds of forethought may erase the vote of someone spending six months studying an issue or candidate. The whole system is an ignorance paradise. Voter preparation may take twenty minutes.
In a primary the candidate “buys” the office. Serious candidates know that they must hire a campaign manager who develops campaign strategies, never gives specifics (if the campaign slogan cannot fit on a postage stamp it is too complex) and spends tens of thousands of dollars on media ads mostly defining the opponent as unfit. Of course, those who give large contributions expect access to the winner after the election so he/she mostly represents them. The poor, outside being used on occasion for street demonstrations or envy politics, have no real representation in either major political party.
In primary elections it is not a matter of how well informed, experienced or qualified one is. What is absolutely critical to winning is whom you hire to promote you. Money, not knowledge, is primary. The rest of the campaign you become a professional beggar asking everyone, always and endlessly to contribute to your campaign. Running for office is not the model of Abraham Lincoln riding the caboose of a train making speeches at each stop. Today candidates give their messages to special interest groups who can deliver votes and money. Far more time is spent asking for money than explaining views. Regular voters only know of a candidate by way of television, print or social media.
The following is representative. In the greater Bakersfield, CA area campaign, where I once resided, manager Mark Abernathy was the “king maker.” Those in the know realized this. In a conversation with him he named virtually everyone holding public office in the area as his and boasted of his winning at least 90% of all elections the previous ten years. He often ran several candidates for different offices simultaneously. Those he brought to power were expected to endorse his future candidates. Rarely did anyone beat the “Abernathy machine.” He is certainly a pleasant fellow, dedicated to his philosophy, and skilled and ruthless in the art of getting someone elected but at a hefty price. In a phone conversation with me he said, “I perceive that you do not have money,” meaning $100,000 or more. I agreed and he selected another candidate to support. Thus in 2010, I failed to secure a seat in the California State Legislature before a single vote was cast.
In a caucus state such as Utah there is protection from the “drive-by” voter. Neighbors gather together and select from themselves those who have earned their respect. These spend whatever time is necessary at candidate activities visiting with candidates, reading their literature and more to differentiate between the candidates before voting. Citizens accept that all voters cannot devote such time and energy in the effort. Each of 2235 precincts in Utah choose from one to five state delegates to differentiate between state candidates and thousands more to do the same for all county candidates. Thousands of state delegates, at their own expense, meet in the Salt Lake City area and county delegates somewhere in their county the following month.
In that 30-day time period before a vote is cast candidates seek to impress these selected delegates with their credentials for the office wanted and delegates can meet with and ask probing questions. This is a far better vetting process than voting based on sound-bytes and hunches.
With respect to issues, caucus delegate voters are far more informed than the general public because the public selected them to probe. There exists no public acclaim for delegates. They have to take off work with no compensation for meals and/or travel for a weekend. They do it to ensure liberty.
In a caucus no one “buys” the office as in primaries. Since candidates do not have to appeal to the less informed, only to delegates, much more interested in details over generalities, they normally do not have the vast expenditures of money needed in a primary election. A candidate with modest means can compete for any state or federal office, which is far more democratic than in a state utilizing the primary system for selecting candidates. The representatives of the people choose their leaders rather than “king makers” as in primaries. Candidates can put priority on issues rather than on fund raising and appealing to the moneyed class.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 23, 2018 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Syrian civilians were reportedly gassed in April 2017, killing 80, and again April 2018, killing 70. President Trump responded to the first with 60 Tomahawk missiles on one location and to the second bombing three separate locations said to have been development or storage sites. In neither are we indisputably certain that Assad did the gassing.
Protecting our “national security interests” (wordage not found in the Constitution) is the phrase most used to justify both US attacks. Side-stepped entirely is the fact that only Congress, under Article I, Section 8, has the constitutional authority to “declare War” but globalists argue that these bombings are not “real war,” only limited war, which the president possesses under Article II as “commander and chief.” But bombing a sovereign nation twice without provocation to us is an act of war. No such argument could be made were Moscow or Beijing bombed. So, an act of war is now constitutional if the victim country is too weak to defend itself.
Unfortunately this interpretation can only come from intentionally misrepresenting Article II: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States,” but only Congress has the power to call the military into actual service.
Other than conducting the war once declared, all military powers are housed as common defense under the legislative branch of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 9-17). These include all power to declare and finance war, raise armies, “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,” and even determine the land that the military may use for training purposes. Nothing was omitted.
Under the Constitution there can never be an unpopular war as the peoples’ representative (The House of Representatives) has total power over raising and funding the army. They must consent to the war by declaration (because they provide blood and brawn for it) and they alone authorize the treasure for it. “All bills for raising revenue shall originate” with them (Art. 1, Sec. 7, Cla. 1).
Moreover, Congress was to monitor the war at two-year intervals through its power of the purse just described. “But no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years” (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cla. 12). If Congress is not happy with the progress of the war it can require the generals and the president to account for why total victory has not yet been obtained and reduce or enlarge funding, with time restraints, to keep them on a short lease with respect to the war declared.
Why did the president get none of these powers? Because he “had the most propensity for war,” James Madison argued in the Constitutional Convention. Kings traditionally had sole war power. Not so under the Constitution. One man would never have such power. A declaration of war gave clarity to a wars beginning and victory or defeat its only ending. It could never be a casual thing as it has become.
Both major architects of the Constitution, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, were clear on this subject. Madison wrote Hamilton, “the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” Hamilton wrote in The Federalist #69 that the president’s powers are confined to “the direction of war when authorized or begun.”
Constitutionally the military functions under Congress, not the president. The president’s power to make war (outside immediate self-defense as in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) can only follow the legislature’s power to authorize war. Congress declared war on Japan the following day.
World War II was the last declared war so how did we lose such constitutional clarity allowing us to denigrate from invasion to justify war to “national interests,” which could be almost anything. They did so incrementally. It is the old adage one perversion justifies another. Both the Korean and Vietnam wars were United Nation’s Wars wherein the globalists argued we needed no declarations, being a part of a higher authority, the UN.
When the UN was not the major justification for war, globalists next favored working through coalition forces, which inferred that agreement among participating nations that a country was deserving of punishment justified acts of war. Requiring congressional approval for limited war would stifle flexibility. This could be made constitutional in public perception provided they enlarged the concept of “commander and chief” well beyond original intent, while simultaneously excluding constitutional wordage “when called into the actual service” and dismissing entirely all the war powers listed for Congress. Who really reads the Constitution anyway, the few who do could be “drummed” out by the ill-informed majority?
Coalition forces were employed in Kosovo, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf Wars, then ISSIS, but coalition countries too eventually grew tired of perpetual war and began declining participating to the point that only Great Britain and France were willing to provide warplanes against Syria. War technology also advanced sufficient to administer punishment without boots on the ground. Such was the case with Syria last weekend. None of this changes the fact that there exists no constitutional authority for the president to bomb another country without congressional approval.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
