Sunday, June 12, 2011

A Response Against the Undeclared War

Billy Herndon left a comment that he thought that President Obama was authorized to attack and bomb Libya under his powers as Commander-in-Chief. I disagreed, offering the following rejoinder:

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.
I await Mr. Herndon's response, although I fear it will not be forthcoming. . . .

1 comment:

Mister Parker said...

Yes, but you don't understand -- if our duly elected representatives exercised their responsibilities to declare war, as specified by the constitution, they'd be on record, one way or the other, unable to talk out of both sides of their mouths, which means they could be held accountable in the next election, which means we the voters could no longer simply bitch and moan and blow with the wind but would actually have to make up our minds and take a stand -- a direct threat to our comfortably indifferent way of life.

I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!