Anti-War Conservatism is Conservatism

Please do yourself a service and read Jack Hunter's latest over at the Daily Caller, dealing with what exactly constitutes a conservative (and constitutional) foreign policy position. Hunter rightly points to the history of the conservative movement to show that there is nothing "leftist" about opposing unnecessary and unconstitutional wars.

Some of the loudest voices on the right continue to categorize Ron Paul’s foreign policy views as “leftist.” It is true that like many on the left, Paul has been a staunch opponent of the Iraq War, our decade-long presence in Afghanistan and the recent intervention in Libya.

Paul believes that the only just war is a war of defense. When America was attacked on 9/11, Paul supported going into Afghanistan because he believed what most Americans believed — that the Taliban was harboring those behind the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. When America is attacked, she defends herself. This is what most Americans think of as “national defense.”

But what Paul’s critics on the right call “national defense” is often something quite different. The concept of preventive war — that is, going to war with nations that “might” be a threat at some point — is something new and without precedent in our history. This part of the Bush Doctrine, coupled with the notion that America can — and must — spread democracy throughout the globe, has become many conservatives’ default foreign policy position.

But this is a strange position for conservatives, because it is not conservative...

...Is Barack Obama a “conservative” for having a foreign policy similar to Bush’s? If “Bush kept us safe” was a mantra conservatives were comfortable using to obscure his big-government record, has “Obama kept us safe” by carrying on with the same wars, starting a new one in Libya and taking out Osama bin Laden? Ron Paul now attacks Obama’s foreign policy just as viciously as he did Bush’s and on the same grounds.

Is Obama the conservative and Paul the liberal?

Read the entire article here.

The Case Against War in Libya

A bi-partisan group of United States congressmen recently brought a lawsuit against the Obama Administration, claiming the administration is in violation of the War Powers Act and is, therefore, carrying out illegal military action in Libya. One of the plaintiffs, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, today released a defense of the lawsuit over at the Daily Caller, which is well worth your attention.

Paul writes:

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya...

 

Please continue reading the article here.

Rand Paul and Mike Lee on the Unconstitutional Libyan War

Yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor, championing the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization before military action and calling out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration. It was a rousing speech and a great moment for my favorite young senator.

Washington Foreign Policy in Four Easy Steps

Wither the Neocons? by the Souther Avenger

Once again the Southern Avenger offers up a pointed and perfect commentary. I love it. Take a watch a be the wiser for it.

Forgetting the Troops by the Southern Avenger

Republicans War Fetish by the Southern Avenger

Scalia and Secession

This has been making its way around the internet recently; so I thought I would comment. Apparently, in 2006 Supreme Court Justice Scalia responded to a screenwriter's request for an opinion on the constitutionality of succession in which he said there was no right to secede.

Justice Scalia replied to the man:

"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.
I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay."

Scalia is right about one thing: such a question would more than likely never go before the Supreme Court. The Court would not want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. And even if it did, a state willing to secede surely would not be bound to the decision of the Court as if it opinion mattered. Why waste your time? Would the state really just rejoin the union based on a Court ruling?

What is alarming about his response is Scalia's insisting that the issue was settled by the so-called "Civil War". Of course, the Constitution itself must be the authority--not the Court and definelty not a war. If went to war over the freedom of the press and those who seek to do away with free press proved the victor, surely we would not exclaim, "There is no right to a free press. The free pressers lost the war." Such a reliance on victory in war is outrageously absurd. Might does not thwart the rule of law. That is tyranny of the majority, which is just as vile a despotism as tyranny of a single agent.

The disturbing factor continues as Scalia looks to the pledge of allegiance as his source of confirmation. The pledge has no connection to the Founding, was written by a self-admitted socialist, and is merely a modern invention to show submission to the state. Surely, fans of liberty should not be fans of the Pledge. "One nation...indivisible" may be a post "War of Northern Aggression" truism, but it is not binding in any manner.

Of course, we know that based on the nature of the Constitution--a voluntary compact among states--that secession is constitutionally permissible. The triumph of might does not mean that the issue has seen the prevalence of right. Moreover, our history is one of secession; we have done it ourselves and often supported it by others. Talk of it is healthy, and we should not dismiss it quickly without being truthful to our own history and our own founding documents.

I am sure Justice Scalia's statement was made in haste and wit, not expecting it to surface publicly. If he is ever truly called upon to rule on the issue, I hope the Constitution--not Union military success--will be his guide.