The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “no Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Obviously, the Third Amendment has little relevance today. But what is relevant for us today is the mindset that underlay the passage of that amendment – a mindset of deep antipathy toward militarism and standing armies. Our ancestors’ fierce opposition to a powerful military force was consistent with their overall philosophy that guided the formation of the Constitution and the passage of the Bill of Rights.

While the Framers understood the need for a federal government, what concerned them was the possibility that such a government would become a worse menace than no government at all. Their recent experience with the British government – which of course had been their government and against which they had taken up arms – had reinforced what they had learned through their study of history: that the biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of a people was their own government.

Thus, after several years operating under the Articles of Confederation, the challenge the Framers faced was how to bring a federal government into existence that would be sufficiently powerful to protect their rights and liberties but that would not also become omnipotent and tyrannical.

Their solution was the Constitution, a document that would call the federal government into existence but limit its powers to those expressly enumerated in the document itself. Thus, a close examination of the Constitution shows that the powers of the U.S. government originate in it. The idea was that if a power wasn’t enumerated, federal officials were precluded from exercising it.

Even that, however, was not good enough for our American ancestors. They wanted an express restriction on the abridgement of what had become historically recognized as fundamental and inherent rights of the people. In other words, they wanted what could be considered an express insurance policy for the protection of their rights. While government officials could not lawfully exercise powers that were not enumerated in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights would make the point even more emphatically that federal officials had no authority to abridge the fundamental rights of the people.

The Constitution provided other measures to protect against the rise of omnipotent and tyrannical government. One was the division of government into three separate branches, with the aim of establishing a system of “checks and balances” that would prevent the rise of powerful centralized government. Another was the Second Amendment, which ensured that the people would retain the means of resisting tyranny or even violently overthrowing a tyrannical government should the need arise.

Given their view that the federal government they were bringing into existence constituted the biggest threat to their freedom and well-being, constantly on the minds of our ancestors was the primary means by which governments had historically subjected their people to tyranny – through the use of the government’s military forces. That is the primary reason for the deep antipathy that the Founders had for an enormous standing military force in their midst. They understood fully that if such a force existed, their own government would possess the primary means by which governments have always imposed tyranny on their own people.

Using armies for tyranny

Historically, governments had misused standing armies in two ways, both of which ultimately subjected the citizenry to tyranny. One was to engage in faraway wars, which inevitably entailed enormous expenditures, enabling the government to place ever-increasing tax burdens on the people. Such wars also inevitably entailed “patriotic” calls for blind allegiance to the government so long as the war was being waged. Consider, for example, the immortal words of James Madison, who is commonly referred to as “the father of the Constitution”:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people…. [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and … degeneracy of manners and of morals…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

The second way to use a standing army to impose tyranny was the direct one – the use of troops to establish order and obedience among the citizenry. Ordinarily, if a government has no huge standing army at its disposal, many people will choose to violate immoral laws that always come with a tyrannical regime; that is, they engage in what is commonly known as “civil disobedience” – the disobedience to immoral laws. But as the Chinese people discovered at Tiananmen Square, when the government has a standing army to enforce its will, civil disobedience becomes much more problematic.

Consider again the words of Madison:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

The idea is that governments use their armies to produce the enemies, then scare the people with cries that the barbarians are at the gates, and then claim that war is necessary to put down the barbarians. With all this, needless to say, comes increased governmental power over the people.

Sound familiar?

The Founding Fathers

Here is how Henry St. George Tucker put it in Blackstone’s 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England:

Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

Virginian Patrick Henry pointed out the difficulty associated with violent resistance to tyranny when a standing army is enforcing the orders of the government:

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

When the Commonwealth of Virginia ratified the Constitution in 1788, its concern over standing armies mirrored that of Patrick Henry:

… that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Virginia’s concern was expressed by North Carolina, which stated in its Declaration of Rights in 1776,

that the people have a Right to bear Arms for the Defence of the State, and as Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

The Pennsylvania Convention repeated that principle:

… as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.

The U.S. State Department’s own website describes the convictions of the Founding Fathers regarding standing armies:

Wrenching memories of the Old World lingered in the 13 original English colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America, giving rise to deep opposition to the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace. All too often the standing armies of Europe were regarded as, at best, a rationale for imposing high taxes, and, at worst, a means to control the civilian population and extort its wealth.

In fact, as Roy G. Weatherup pointed out in his excellent article, “Standing Armies and Armed Citizens: A Historical Analysis of the Second Amendment,” the abuses of their government’s standing army was one of the primary reasons that the British colonists took up arms against that army in 1776:

[The Declaration of Independence] listed the colonists’ grievances, including the presence of standing armies, subordination of civil to military power, use of foreign mercenary soldiers, quartering of troops, and the use of the royal prerogative to suspend laws and charters. All of these legal actions resulted from reliance on standing armies in place of the militia.

Moreover, as William S. Fields and David T. Hardy point out in their excellent article, “The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History,” the deep antipathy that the Founders had toward standing armies followed a long tradition among the British people of opposing the standing armies of their king:

The experience of the early Middle Ages had instilled in the English people a deep aversion to the professional army, which they came to associate with oppressive taxes, and physical abuses of their persons and property (and corresponding fondness for their traditional institution the militia). This development was to have a profound effect on the development of civil rights in both England and the American colonies…. During the seventeenth century, problems associated with the involuntary quartering of soldiers and the maintenance of standing armies became crucial issues propelling the English nation toward civil war.

Did the antipathy against standing armies mean that our ancestors were pacifists? On the contrary! After all, don’t forget that they had only recently won a violent war against their own government and its enormous and powerful standing army.

In their minds, the military bedrock of a free society lay not in an enormous standing army but rather in the concept of the citizen-soldier – the person in ordinary life in civil society who is well-armed and well-trained in the use of weapons and who is always ready in times of deepest peril to come to the aid of his country – but only to defend against invasion and not to go overseas to wage wars of aggression or wars of “liberation.” As John Quincy Adams put it in his July 4, 1821, address to Congress, America “does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”

U.S. foreign policy

Are the ideas and principles of the Founding Fathers relevant today? They couldn’t be more relevant. Many decades ago, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about the growing power of the military-industrial complex in American life. Unfortunately, the American people failed to heed his warning. The result has been an ever-growing military cancer that is bringing death, ruin, shame, and economic disaster to our nation – just as our Founding Fathers said it would.

More and more people are finally recognizing that the anger and hatred that foreigners have for the United States is rooted in morally bankrupt, deadly, and destructive foreign policies – policies that have been enforced by America’s enormous standing military force. The resulting blow-back in terms of terrorist attacks, such as those on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001, have been used as the excuse for waging more wars thousands of miles away, and those wars have produced even more anger and hatred, with the concomitant threat of even more terrorist counter-responses. All that, in turn, has provided the excuse for more foreign interventions, ever-increasing military budgets, consolidation of power, increasing taxes, and massive infringements on the civil liberties of the American people.

It is not a coincidence that the president’s indefinite detention and punishment of American citizens for suspected terrorist crimes without according them due process, habeas corpus, right to counsel, jury trials, freedom of speech, or other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are being enforced by the standing army that our ancestors warned us against. And make no mistake about it: Given orders of their commander in chief, especially in a “national security crisis,” to establish “order” in America, U.S. soldiers will do the same thing that soldiers throughout history have done – they will obey the orders given to them. Just ask the survivors of the massacre at the Branch Davidian compound at Waco or the victims of rape and sex abuse at Abu Graib prison in Iraq or Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was denied due process, habeas corpus, and other rights accorded by the U.S. Constitution.

In determining the future direction of our nation, the choice is clear: Do we continue down the road of empire, standing armies, foreign wars and occupations, and sanctions and embargoes, along with the taxes, regulations, and loss of liberty that inevitably come with them? Do we continue a foreign policy, enforced by the U.S. military, that engenders ever-increasing anger and hatred among the people of the world, which then engenders violent “blowback” against Americans, which is in turn used to justify more of the same policies?

Or do we change direction and move our nation in the direction of the vision of our Founding Fathers – toward liberty and the restoration of a republic to our nation – toward a society in which the government is limited to protecting the nation from invasion and barred from invading or attacking foreign nations – a world in which the United States is once again the model society for freedom, prosperity, peace, and harmony – a nation in which the Statue of Liberty once again becomes a shining beacon for those striving to escape the tyranny and oppression of their own governments?

Jacob Hornberger [send him mail] is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Copyright © 2004 Future of Freedom Foundation

Last week I discussed our worsening economic situation and the fact that there are very few options for the new administration to improve things in the long run.  The same is not true on the foreign policy front.  Our interventionist foreign policy stands ready to be put on a new course with the new administration.  Unfortunately, it seems the new administration is likely to continue the mistakes of the past.

I’ve often discussed interventionist foreign policy and the resulting blowback.  The current administration’s foreign policy, I’m afraid, has created a huge impetus for blowback against the United States.  However, I truly believe much of the world stands ready to look beyond our nation’s recent blunders if the new administration proves to be heading in a more reasonable direction.

Other nations around the world find our interference in their affairs condescending, and it is very dangerous for us.  We may think we have much to gain by inserting ourselves in these complex situations, but on the contrary we suffer from many consequences.

Other countries have their problems, to be sure.  But how would we feel if China or Russia came to our soil and tried to depose our problematic leaders or correct our policies for us?  Our problems are ours to solve, and we need to give other countries that respect as well.  Instead, we have been turning alleged, phantom threats into real, actual threats.

We should follow the foreign policy advice of the Founders – friendship and commerce with all nations.  One positive step would be to end our destructive embargo of Cuba, which deprives our farmers of a market just 90 miles from US shores while strengthening the Communist regime.   We’ve seen 50 years of statist restrictions not accomplish anything.

A change is needed.  Other countries should decide how to govern themselves.  Even if we don’t necessarily approve, it’s none of our business.  If other people foolishly choose to live under statist experimental regimes, they need to fail in their own right, and not have us as a scapegoat.  We need to focus on our own affairs.

However, the pressures exerted on our leadership from the military industrial complex and big business is not in favor of peace or freedom, or especially nonintervention.  Intervention is big business.  Defense contracts topped $300 billion last year, and total spending on war and our overseas empire is up to $1 trillion per year.

That represents a lot of people earning a living off of war and conquest.  But rather than adding to our economy, all of this money is taken from the economy in order to wage war and destruction.  Imagine if those resources were put to creative, productive use here at home!

We need to rein in our overseas empire, as quickly as possible.  We need to bring our troops home, and get our economy back into the business of production, not destruction.  The smartest thing we could do is admit we don’t know all the answers to all the world’s problems.

If the new administration can take a closer look at real free trade and no entangling alliances, we would be much better off for it.  Economically – we could save hundreds of billions of dollars each year!  The new leadership has the opportunity and the political capital to do this.  But unfortunately, it is not likely to happen.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

Here’s an excerpt:

The US government has no business providing disaster relief to Myanmar, food relief to poor countries, or humanitarian aid of any kind. The purpose of government is supposed to be to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of the people who form it. The fact that all governments eventually deviate from their stated purpose is irrelevant. And besides, there is a calculation problem here. How much aid should the US government provide? What type of aid should be given? What strings, if any, should be attached to the aid supplied? How long should aid be maintained?

Even worse is the use of the military to provide foreign-aid services. The purpose of the military is to defend the country from attack or invasion, not to deliver food and spread good will and cheer. Yes, it would be better if the US military delivered bread and butter instead of bombs and bullets, but that is not the issue.

There was a time in this country when it was recognized to be improper for the federal government to provide humanitarian relief even within the United States. President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill in 1887 that would have provided seed for farmers in drought-stricken Texas. In his veto message, he wrote that aid from Washington only “encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.” The Texas farmers ended up getting ten times as much in private assistance as they would have received from Uncle Sam.

Read more here

In principle, Vance is right on the mark. Constitutionally, of course, none of this spending is authorized. The US Constitution was written under what is referred to as “positive grant.” In short, what this means is that the federal government is authorized to engage in only those activities specifically authorized by the Constitution. Positive = authorized activities. Grant = specifically listed.

Just to make sure this principle was legally codified, the Tenth Amendment was included:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There is no authorization to pay for relief in Myanmar. There is no authorization to prop up dictators in places like Pakistan with your money. There is no authorization to spend your money on “military assistance” for other countries. There is no authorization to funnel money through the CIA to support regime changes. The Constitution was written in plain English – there is nothing there which authorizes the federal government to take your money and give it to foreign governments. For any reason.

But don’t take my word for it. Try reading the Constitution to see if you can find authorization to engage in such activities for yourself.

Congress is poised to pass the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid.  The bill passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to nearly double the President’s requested amount.

It is always distressing to see officials in our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional limitations.

Much of this aid will run through government-to-government channels and will be vulnerable to corruption.  Some of the aid will be sent to faith-based organizations who, along with accepting government largess, will now be subject to governmental controls and will soon become more dependent on taxpayer funding than private funds.

If they accept the aid, they must be careful of the vague language regarding what types of programs they can run.  For example, the requirement that 33% of any funding received must go toward abstinence-only programs has been dropped and replaced with a 50% requirement toward behavior change.

Many humanitarian organizations are incensed by the politicized requirements placed on their work, and feel they are being forced to continue failed programs at the expense of more effective ones.

The obvious question remains:  Why are politicians in the United States deciding what is best for people in Africa ?  And why are taxpayers in the United States being forced to fund –for example – family planning facilities that perform abortions?

In fact, Afrobarometer, a leading source of data on public attitudes in Africa asked Africans what their main developmental concerns were.  They found that Africans are much more concerned about jobs, agriculture and basic infrastructure than they are about health issues like AIDS.

Africans should decide what is best for Africa .  American taxpayers should decide what charities deserve their money.

Forcibly taking money from the United States and sending it overseas is unconstitutional and immoral.

The energy that lobbying groups and celebrities expend for charitable causes here on the Hill could be better put to use actually addressing problems.  It is sadly symptomatic of the trend toward bigger government that instead of private fundraising efforts, people put their hand out to Congress.

It is unfortunate that some activists prefer funding taken by force, to donations freely given.

These efforts, though well-meaning, are misguided.  The truth is all the foreign aid in the world will not transform Africa into a thriving, healthy continent.  The economic growth of Africa depends on African entrepreneurs, liberalized trade policies, and political and economic freedom.

The best thing we could possibly do for Africa and for our own country, is to stop sending misguided aid, and stop protectionist trade practices that prevent African farmers and producers from competing in our markets.

Perhaps then Africa’s leaders would focus less on how to get aid out of the United States , and more on the economic vitality of their own countries.

It has been over 6 years since the atrocities of September 11 were committed and there are still some very basic measures that need to be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice and make America  safer.  I have proposed legislation to help with these efforts and will continue to fight in Congress for the safety and security of the American people.

My legislation entitled The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 (HR 3216) makes the surgical strike option available to the President in our mission to capture Bin Laden.  Our military has been pursuing him without result for far too long now, and it is high time ALL constitutional tools were utilized in the hunt for this dangerous madman.

As an American it sickens me to know that Bin Laden and top leaders of al Qaeda remain at large and thumbing their noses at us, while we unravel the sacred fabric of our constitution out of fear.  It is Osama Bin Laden and the perpetrators of terrorist attacks that ought to be afraid of us, not the other way around.  The answers are found in the Constitution.  We should boldly root out the perpetrators and not let them get away with their crimes against us.  As the home of the brave we should use Letters of Marque and Reprisal to bring Bin Laden to justice.

Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil.  Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained.  In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas.

Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries.  We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn.

They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department’s list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia .  Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology.

A lot has been done to fight the War on Terror and much of it has been misdirected, but there are some tools still needed and more progress to be made.  My bills The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 and The Terror Immigration Elimination Act are logical steps in the right direction.

As reported by CNN:

Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.

A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with “high confidence” that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

But, of course, the debate has heightened – some state that this is just more proof that action is needed, because Iran has (and could again) have the intention to build a nuclear program. On the other side, some state that this is a slam dunk – since Iran isn’t building nuclear weapons, and thus, there’s no need to get aggressive with that country’s leadership.

So who’s right?

If we look to the Constitution, and more specifically the 10th Amendment, both sides of this argument are wrong – as far as what direction American foreign policy should take, that is.

Let’s back up a bit first.

The Constitution was written under what’s called “positive grant.” What this means is quite simple. The federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are positively granted to it by the Constitution. If a power is specifically listed in the Constitution, the federal government can do it. And, vice versa.

This principle was so important to the founding fathers that they codified it in law as the 10th Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Simple, right? Well, you’d think so, but it’s in the nature of government – and politicians – to ignore any rules that limit their power. And that’s why we see both the 10th Amendment, and the entire Constitution, becoming more and more irrelevant in political discussions in Washington D.C.

So how does this apply to Iranian Nukes – or lack of them?

Well, it’s so straightforward, it’s pretty easy to miss.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the US federal government given the authority to dictate to other countries what form of offensive or defensive weapons they may possess. The Constitution clearly gives the feds the power to repel an imminent attack, but possession of a weapon, in and of itself, is not a threat of its use.

That’s why it’s so odd that there’s such a large contingent of so-called right wingers who are supporting action against Iran – supporting the disarmament of another country.

It all seems quite hypocritical. Generally, the right (or conservatives as some like to be called) supports the right of self-defense – especially as espoused by the 2nd Amendment.

While many of these people oppose criminalizing the possession of a weapon, and only support punitive measures based on how that weapon is used, they do an about face when it comes to Iran. They have no problem criminalizing the possession – rather than the use – of a weapon, and are seemingly willing to end the lives of countless thousands to enforce that “law.”

This is government power run amok – in the worst way. The disarming of Iran is just gun control taken to its natural conclusion – on a global level – where one group of armed people in a government claim the right to disarm another group of people.

“Disarming” or preventing nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian government has nothing to do with maintaining peace, has nothing to do with protecting the American people, and has nothing to do with just about anything we hear from the mainstream media.

It’s about one government disarming another to ensure its own safety, its own power, and its own empire.

In a May 2005 article, former presidential candidate Harry Browne may have put it best:

No one has answered – or until now, even asked – the obvious question: Why is it that the United States can have a nuclear arsenal far larger than that of every other country in the world combined, but that Iran can’t have even a single nuclear bomb – especially when Israel, Pakistan, and India have nuclear weapons?

But then, that’s the mission of TV news: to avoid asking the obvious questions.

And on top of it all, from where does the US government claim its right to determine what’s acceptable – and what’s not – as part of another country’s military arsenal?

It’s over two years later, and still no one on either side of the debate is asking these important questions.

It’s just not in their interest to do so.

More striking than this, though, was one small sentence near the end of the email – which highlighted, with a sense of pride, that American troops are based…everywhere.

we now have troops serving in 177 countries

America Supports You expects this effort to be a unifying moment for the nation, at a time in which families traditionally come together and express gratitude for things large and small that contribute to their lives.

Gratitude for empire?  Personally, I’d prefer to thank people for protecting and defending the Constitution – and refusing to take part in actions that people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would find repugnant to the ideals of a free society.

A foreign policy of non-interventionism was what the founders envisioned for this country – not endless wars, building democracies, and people “serving in 177 countries”

177 countries!
Without belaboring the point, I feel it’s essential to remember the following words of wisdom:

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.
-Thomas Jefferson

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Left of Right – there’s only one presidential candidate that’s calling for a foreign policy of freedom – a foreign policy based on the advice of the Founding Fathers…

That candidate is Ron Paul.

The amendment states: “The United State should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization . . . and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.”

Looks like this “non-binding” resolution is a wide-open door for war. Think the administration is going to pass up a chance to name part of the Iranian military as a terrorist group? Think again. I can’t imagine it not happening.

So what happens after that? It seems pretty obvious in the age of the “war on terror” doesn’t it? I, like many others, can’t help but expect this to end up in yet another, undeclared, unconstitutional war. (see overviews of war powers and the constitution here, here and here)

The Democratic Senate, although claiming to be the opposition, is working hand in hand with those insane neo-cons who are telling us that a military strike on Iran (and thus, the killing of countless innocents) will “improve” the political situation in the Middle East.

But, as usual, all the debate in D.C about Iran has been a distraction. They talk about weapons and troops and nukes and everything else, but they never focus on what’s important.

No one seems to have answered – or even asked – the obvious questions. Here’s a few:

• Why is it that the US military is allowed to have a presence in Iraq, and Iran cannot?
• Why is it that the US can ship hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to Iraq, and Iran cannot?
• Why is it that the United States can have a nuclear arsenal far larger than that of every other country in the world combined, but that Iran can’t have even a single nuclear bomb?

Well, that’s the goal of this government – to avoid the real issues.

The interviews and discussions have involved some heated rhetoric about whether or not the “surge” is “working” in Iraq, but at the end of the day, this is just theater, and almost nothing will change.

US Senators are not generally inclined to stand up and oppose the opinions of a General – even if that general is little more than a politicians, like Dave Petreaus is.

I’ve already seen some powerful statistics on both sides of the issue. Everyone from Petraeus to MoveOn.org, to Talking Points Memo have analyzed the “results” of the war escalation.

Debates about this theatrical display will undoubtedly go on for some time. People from all viewpoints will take one side or the other – either the surge is working or it isn’t. Right?

So the politicians and the media present us with two choices. But all this back-and-forth arguing masks the real choice – the third one – the one that’s never talked about in on TV or in Congress.

What’s that, you might ask? Well, it’s quite simple. They never, ever discuss the role of the Constitution, and what it says about how American foreign policy should be conducted.

You see, the 10th Amendment clearly states that any power not specifically listed in the Constitution cannot be exercised by the federal government. Therefore, here’s a couple (of the many) key things that the federal government is doing that is unconstitutional.

• Occupying Iraq. This war was launched without a Congressional Declaration of War as required by the Constitution. Thus, it was illegal from the start, and any talk about troop movements, increases, or reductions is completely irrelevant. An illegal war is illegal – no matter how it’s waged.
• Maintaining Foreign Military Bases. The Constitution permits the “raising” of an army, but nothing, whatsoever, is mentioned about basing an army permanently in countries around the world. The entire US military needs to come home – to protect the United States.

Virtually the entire US foreign policy is in direct violation to the Constitution. It’s all wrong; whether it’s using “foreign aid” to prop up dictators and ruthless regimes, backing coups and assassinations, maintaining a military “presence” in 130+ countries, or waging wars that result in the deaths of millions…..and millions…

The messy bloodbath that is the Iraq war is simply a symptom – a symptom of a nasty disease that’s infected the US government for decades. Until we make some major changes to our foreign policy as a whole, we’re going end up in more and more bloody wars in (not-so-distant?) future.

The bitter transatlantic row over Iraq intensified as another key British general lambasted the US for bungling the aftermath of the invasion.

Major General Tim Cross, the most senior UK officer involved in the post-war planning, said Washington’s policy had been “fatally flawed”. He also insisted he had raised serious concerns about the possibility of the country sliding into chaos with Donald Rumsfeld – but the then-US defence secretary “dismissed” the warnings.

Once again, the personalities and the media are concerned with the symptoms of our problems in Iraq – rather than the cause.

Although it seems that the Bush administration has made plenty of mistakes in the handling of Iraq – there are always going to be people who support those decisions. Thus, the debate in the media is generally focused on two sides – proper vs improper handling of the war – but neither actually oppose the war itself….just its handling.

The failures of managing an aggressive war are just the symptom of an inherently flawed foreign policy of aggression, force and war.

The US Constitution was written under “positive grant.” This means that the federal government is authorized to exercise those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution. This was so important to the founders that they codified it in law as the Tenth Amendment.

The war in Iraq was was unconstitutional from the start because it lacked a declaration of war from Congress – as mandated by the Constitution. This has been covered at length in a number of previous posts on this site.

No matter what the politicians or the pundits may tell you, there is nothing, whatsoever, in the Constitution, which authorized the Congress to delegate its war-declaring powers to the Executive Branch.

Undeclared wars are the norm in Washington, and they have been a cancer that’s infected U.S. foreign policy for decades. Mismanagement of these undeclared wars is just an obvious and expected symptom. These symptoms will never go away until the cancer is removed.