Podcast: Restoring the Constitution-Constitutional War Powers or War Powers Act
This week, Federico Lines, of States Rights Radio, and I discussed the war powers clauses in the U.S. Constitution compared to the War Powers Act of 1973. Our discussion is on the heels of the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. Certainly, I’ve written about that, but our discussion is about the principles laid out in the Constitution that have been completely disregarded by the Military Industrial Complex and their puppet presidents, both Democrat and Republican alike.
The podcast (link here) can be found here:
https://www.spreaker.com/user/16611197/tonight-s-episode-war-powers-clause-or-w
Let’s start by taking a look at the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 which clearly lays out that the Congress declares war, not the president, and that there’s no place for a standing army. That comes under Clauses 11 and 12:
“The Congress shall have Power…
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”
I’m going to add Clauses 13-16 since they have some relation:
“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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
The theme of our discussion this week, which is the general theme of the podcast itself, is that we need to study the Constitution and we need to learn from the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. It does not matter what one believes about the Israel-Gaza conflict, Russia-Ukraine or any other conflict going on around the world. We must fight for principles.
I do not support the Military Industrial Complex and its blood lust for profit. But just as concerning is the absolute disregard for the Constitution and the founding principles. I ask to any neocon lusting for America to be involved in every single war possible, at the very least follow the Constitution. Declare war properly through Congress so we can hold the government accountable when the warmongers create more enemies for us and continue to destroy our economy and our liberty.
Let’s just take a look at the wisdom of the founders.
George Washington:
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none.”
John Quincy Adams:
“America... goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.”
James Madison:
“The means of defense against 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.”
Elbridge Thomas Gerry, vice president under Madison:
“What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. …Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
The Constitution has not been followed at practically any issue in my lifetime, especially when it comes to foreign policy. And every president in my lifetime has waged unconstitutional military actions, but they get away with it because of a feckless, worthless legislature and judiciary.
Let’s look at the War Powers Act of 1973. This is how The History Channel described it:
“The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad. Among other restrictions, the law requires that presidents notify Congress after deploying the armed forces and limits how long units can remain engaged without congressional approval. Enacted in 1973 with the goal of avoiding another lengthy conflict such as the Vietnam War, its effectiveness has been repeatedly questioned throughout its history, and several presidents have been accused of failing to comply with its regulations.”
Are you kidding me? It was meant to “limit” the president’s power with regards to war? Seriously, read Article I, Section 8. There was no power for the president to limit.
No, that act was meant to cause confusion and let the worthless Congress wipe their hands clean of doing their job. Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote:
“That law permits the president to wage any war against any foreign enemy without a congressional declaration of war for 90 days. This is clearly unconstitutional; the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the branches of the federal government cannot cede away powers that have been firmly fixed by the Constitution.”
Since then, things have only gotten worse, as Napolitano describes in the above piece. So, History Channel suggests Congress wanted to avoid “another lengthy conflict.” Folks, we are in perpetual war.
War is the health of the state. Is the juice that keeps the tyrants going. Let’s just take the nonsense of Janet Yellen proclaiming America can afford two wars. First off, let’s realize we’re engaged in so many wars that even the warmongers running them problem can’t count them all. Second, we’re $33.7 trillion in debt. But that’s funded through fiat currency printed, or digitally added, out of thin air through the criminal Federal Reserve. This is what funds perpetual war, perpetual bloodshed. And it’s necessary to keep these wars going to keep the house of cards going. The problem, all houses of cards will topple at some point. We can’t afford any of the adventurism of the neocon warmongers.
With regards to Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza, David Stockman wrote:
“What a day for another $106 billion imperial boondoggle. There is not one dime in ‘Joe Biden’s’ war package that enhances the safety and security of the American homeland, yet all of it is being blithely charged to Uncle Sam’s vastly over-extended credit card….
At the end of the day, the Joe Biden war package tells you all you need to know about Washington’s utter dysfunction. That is, $61 billion for a war that undermines Homeland security, $14 billion to an ally that doesn’t need it, $14 billion for a Border War that could be ended with the large-scale Guest Worker program that America desperately needs and $14 billion for do-goodism in a world that has had more than enough of Washington’s good works for a long time to come.
So for crying out loud, Washington. Stop spending money that you don’t have on wars that America absolutely does not need!”
There’s also this lie of Keynesians who proclaim World War II ended the Great Depression. No, it was the massive cut in government spending once the war ended that did.
“On the surface, wartime spending finally propelled America from the Depression's pits. As war production expanded from roughly 2% of GDP to almost 40%, statistically, America rebounded. In 1940 dollars, GDP shot from $101.4 billion to $120.7 billion in 1941 up to $174.8 billion by 1945 while unemployment fell below 2%.”
But, as Flax shows, this was illusionary. Sure, they artificially created “strong” economic numbers, but at what cost? The jobs were to support the government’s war, the life was one of austerity. Americans were rationed, there liberty lost. After the war ended, federal spending dropped from $98.7 billion to $33.8 billion and the economy boomed.
Flax continued:
“Deficit spending has never once successfully stimulated recovery. Like our failed war on poverty or public education, interventionists consistently claim we haven't spent sufficiently. Mimicking the New Deal’s failure, Keynesians today decry that the Bush and Obama stimulus bills were half-hearted.
Dr. (Paul) Krugman so desperately seeks more spending that he wishes Congress would pretend aliens are invading. Washington could then control the economy – for our good, not theirs, he'd have us assume. Krugman assures us liberals have a conscience.”
And talking about a loss of liberty, our liberty is always curtailed when we’re at war. And that’s what comes with standing armies. Note Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 that states funding of an army last no longer than two years. Why? Because standing armies destroy our liberties.
“All too often, government-produced defense is discussed as an ideal – a force that protects people and their rights. Seldom does reality enter the picture. Standing armies, after all, often do not only practice defense.
Once established, a government’s military, its bureaucrats and leaders, as well as laymen all face a different set of incentives. Those with a job related to the military have an incentive to keep their job. In most cases, they probably also desire to see the scope of their power expanded and their pay increased. The support for war then, is the ideal policy for achieving those goals. These incentives may not transform a champion of peace into a war-loving bureaucrat, but they can have effects on the margins. It’s much easier to rationalize a war if your job depends on it….
The Founding Fathers feared a standing army, and for good reason. While its ideal purpose is to create peace, we do not live in a world of ideals. The actual effects are to lower the costs of war to those who would have it, and to create a special-interest group of bureaucrats and military personnel who have a vested interest in advancing the war machine. As long as the army stands, peace is unlikely to be achieved or long-lasting.”
“Modern America prides itself on having one of the finest, well-equipped militaries the world has ever known. But, if you examine American history, this is contrary to over 100 years of tradition and not what the Founding Fathers envisioned….
The Founding Fathers are famous for arguing against a large standing military. Although European nations all had massive armies and navies that were expensive to maintain, it was something the young nation could not afford. Plus, many early Americans saw those great military forces as the government’s first means of controlling the citizens. Given that we had just found a revolution against government oppression, our early leaders preferred to have a relatively small army and navy supported by local state militias which would only be called to duty when needed, something which would require state approval. Not only did this defer cost, but also provided a sort of check and balance against Federal abuse.”
This practice was the standard throughout the first 100 plus years of American history. Following the Revolutionary War, militias were disbanded and the members returned to civilian occupations, even the main Army and Navy were similarly dissolved for a short time but reestablished in a much smaller form. When trouble arose, the militias were called up, and the military quickly swelled in numbers and again disbanded once no longer needed. This practice was followed after each major conflict – War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War and even World War 1; each time, the US called up temporary forces to defeat the threat and once the fighting ceased the troops were sent home.”
And I want to note my stance on war. I am not a pacifist, but I am anti-war. Any war must be one of defense or justice after being wronged, not wars of conquest or profit. I believe in the just war theory Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Napolitano describes the just war theory:
“First, since force destroys, and there is a presumption against its use, the presumption must be overcome by first using all peaceful and viable means and alternatives to war; and it must be clear that these alternatives are fruitless before a war can be just.
Second, the cause must be just; that is, the purpose of the war must be to correct a grave, profound, enduring public evil that directly impairs the freedom or safety of those contemplating war.
Third, only a lawfully competent authority may commence the use of violence, as was not the case when President Johnson bombed North Vietnam or President Nixon bombed Cambodia or President Obama bombed Libya. Thus, the internal laws of the nation using military violence must be crafted so that war is the public policy of the nation, not just the temporary personal preference of whoever is running the government.
Fourth, there must be a probability of success, so that men and women are not sent to certain death for a lost cause.
Fifth, the use of force must be proportional to the harm it seeks to eradicate; thus, no more persons may be harmed by the use of military force than are absolutely necessary to achieve the just goals of the war.
Finally, the war must be fought fairly and ended quickly.”
Additional Sources:
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671
https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/the-standing-army-a-threat-to-peace/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/how-the-great-depression-finally-ended/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/10/martin-armstrong/yellen-we-can-certainly-afford-two-wars/
https://dollarcollapse.com/world-war-iii-began-with-the-demise-of-the-gold-standard/
https://sethhancock.substack.com/p/america-a-weekend-at-bernies-nation
https://sethhancock.substack.com/p/podcast-restoring-the-constitution-4bc
War is a Racket
I’ll finish with excerpts from War Is A Racket by Major General Smedley Butler who fought in multiple wars, World War I his last, during his 34-year career in the Marines. He was the most decorated Marine in America when he wrote the book, which was published in 1935.
Butler wrote:
“WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?”
In chapter five, Butler writes:
“I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.
Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had ‘kept us out of war’ and on the implied promise that he would ‘keep us out of war.’ Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.
Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?
Money.
An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:
‘There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.
If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money . . . and Germany won’t.
So…’
Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a ‘war to make the world safe for democracy’ and a ‘war to end all wars.’
Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.
And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.
Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?
The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.
The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.
There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.
The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.
Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.
But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.
If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war -- even the munitions makers.
So. ..I say,
TO HELL WITH WAR!”