Illegal Wars (Continued)
Yesterday, I posted an article on my blog called “Illegal Wars” which was in response to Kucinich and two other Congressmen announcing that they were going to be filing a lawsuit in federal court to “stop the war in Libya.”
Apparently there was a resolution (that was passed by a vote of 268 to 145) calling for the President to provide information on what was happening in Libya within two weeks. Well that time has come and gone. Now, the speaker of the house is saying that when they get to the topic later on this week, they will consider pulling funding of any Libyan effort. (To date (June 21, 2011), over 700 million dollars have been spent in the “war effort” in Libya.)
Remember yesterday, that I wrote, “In other words, PULL THE MONEY!!”
Now, one could possibly get excited over the issue that apparently someone (Speaker of the House, John Boehner) has read the Constitution and realizes that Congress has the authority to pull funding from the military.
Talk about a sense of vindication. However, this has actually just further ticked me off at our federal government. Does anyone really think this is a new revelation; that they have suddenly discovered Article 1, Section 8, clause 12: “To raise and SUPPORT armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”?
I came across an interesting video on the topic. Wolf Blitzer, of CNN, is interviewing Representative Kucinich (D).
(I think I am going to have to download and save this video and add it to my seminar. It is chock full of constitutionally erroneous material.)
In this interview, Kucinich said, “Congress has to “Approve the United States going to war.”
This is quite the twist on what the Constitution actually says. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 states: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” There is VERY important distinction that has to be made between declare and approve.
Once upon a time, Congress had to DECLARE war, before the President became “Commander in Chief” of the Army. APRROVE, is the situation that we are in today, because we have had an unconstitutionally standing militia since World War II. Because of the perpetually standing “Army” the President is perpetually the Commander in Chief and Congress had to make new rules, known as the “War Powers Act” to adjust the unconstitutional nature of our military. So now, since we have a perpetual army and a perpetual commander in chief, the president has to seek the approval of congress for military actions; rather than a constitutional mandate from Congress known as a declaration of war.
Consequently, watch how Rep. Kucinich has to waffle when Blitzer asks “He is the Commander in Chief, though, right?” In response, Representative Kucinich says, “You know what? Yes, but that doesn’t go into effect until the Congress authorizes a war.”
According to the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1: “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…” (Did anyone notice the phrase, “When called into the actual service of the United States”?)
Now, the question begs to be asked, “What is the constitutional provision to call the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states in to actual service of the United States?” That would be Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11: (quoted above).
Next makes the statement that the President is saying, “this is NOT A WAR, but United Nations Security Council approved military action…it’s not a U.S. unilateral active war.”
Here’s the next question that begs to be asked, “What constitutional provision allows for the use of the military for anything but a war?” Answer: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15, which states, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
Nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, in the Constitution provides for any military action but a Declaration of War, Suppress Insurrections and Repel Invasions!” Most certainly not a “United Nations Security Council approved military action.”
Kucinich said if what is going on in Libya is war, we have to redefine what war is. HE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD! That’s exactly what has been going on for over 60 years now; WE HAVE REDEFINED WHAT WAR IS. Korea, Vietnam, Desert Shield / Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., etc. Especially Iraq! We, the United States of America, invaded a sovereign nation; we defeated the Iraqi military and captured the “Evil Iraqi Dictator.” We went to war and destroyed a nation, all without ever declaring war against that sovereign nation.
Just thinking about the whole issue of “redefining” constitutional issues makes me think of how Congress and the Courts have redefined what a human being is, so as to justify the killing of millions and millions of unborn children.
Getting back to the point... Every military action taken since World War II (which is the last time that Congress ever “Declared War”) has been unconstitutional and illegal. The only constitutionally correct measured that were proposed to congress were the two “Marque and Reprisal Acts” sponsored by Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Neither of which ever received a vote.
- H.R.3076 -- September 11, Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 --> Died in committee.
- H.R.3216 -- Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 --> Died in committee.
“Letters of Marque and Reprisal” is a constitutional provision that was used back in the war against the “Barbary Pirates.” Actually, because President Thomas Jefferson refused to continue to pay tribute to the Barbary Pirates, the pirates declared war on the United States. In the Marine’s Hymn, there is a reference to this conflict, “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.” Two VERY interesting things come from this:
1) The Barbary Pirates were the “Muslim Extremist Terrorists of their day; and
2) Tripoli is in modern day Libya.
= = = = = = = = =
OK… Now I have a question for you. Yesterday, I provided the commentary resources known as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. Did any of you take the opportunity to see what our Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution thought on the subject of a “Standing Armies?”