Common Defence

The following is the opening story of the latest issue of the Constitution Letter Newsletter.  Subscribe for $2 per month HERE.

If you would like to contribute to my efforts regarding the Constitution, you may do so HERE.

By Douglas V. Gibbs

With all of this talk about a "limited" attack against Syria, and then President Obama suddenly backing away and practically handing the Middle East over to Russia, I find it curious that our leaders in Washington screamed and yelled over what they thought the Constitution says, but never really consulted it, or the writings of the founders, in regards to what to do with Syria, and the presence of chemical weapons.  Of course the casual observer may say, "The Founding Fathers never mentioned chemical weapons, so how can we consult them on how to respond to such a threat?"

In reality, the issue is not chemical weapons as much as it is, "Should we be involved in foreign entanglements that carry no immediate dangers to our national security?" Whether or not we as a nation should get involved in foreign entanglements is not specifically addressed in the Constitution.  We are told that the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief in Article II, Section 2, and we are told that the Congress has the authority "To Declare War" in Article I, Section 8.  Beyond that, the Constitution does not really discuss when we should go to war, and when we should show restraint.

When one studies James Madison's notes on the debates during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, we discover that as Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to wage war when he believes it is necessary.  In our first two international conflicts, under Presidents Jefferson, and Madison, the wars were fought without a declaration of war against the Islamic Barbary Pirates.  Both Presidents Jefferson, and Madison, felt it was necessary to "wage war" without a declaration of war for the purpose of expediency in regards to protecting our shipping routes.  Because there was no declaration of war, however, the consequences of military action lay solely on the shoulders of the President, since Congress never officially declared it.

When Congress declares war, it is a formal declaration to the world that a state of war exists, and any interference by other nations are at their own peril. During a conflict that is not declared, any battle contact with nations not involved, such as the sinking of a ship, would be considered an act of war against the injured nation.

The power to wage war is not an unlimited authority, however.  If the President insists upon engaging in foreign entanglements, and the Congress does not approve, there are checks against the Executive's war powers.  Congress can defund the war effort, or if the President's insistence to use the military makes them believe he is waging war in a manner beyond what he should be, they can even pursue articles of impeachment.

Foreign Entanglements, as explained by many of the founders through letters to each other, were defined at international conflicts that did not involve the United States in any way, be it regarding trade routes, or overall national security.  For example, during John Adams' presidency, Britain and France went to war, and though Vice President Thomas Jefferson voiced his position that the United States should take sides, Adams cautioned against such a verbal action, warning that even declaring sides could drag the United States into a war that did not directly influence any American interests.  Without a national security justification, Adams felt it was best that the United States remained out of the conflict across the Atlantic Ocean.

Pundits in today's political atmosphere like to refer to the War Powers Act of 1973 when determining the President's authorities regarding military conflict.  Influenced by the Vietnam War, which was never declared, Congress proposed the piece of legislation as a way of ensuring that unless immediate emergency military action is required, the President would need to gain congressional approval before taking any military action around the world.  In a sense, the War Powers Act mirrors in many ways the desire of the founders as can be ascertained through their writings.  However, the piece of legislation is just that, a mere piece of legislation, and the authorities of the President, including war powers, cannot be modified without a constitutional amendment.  So, in short, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

Now, we cycle all the way back to the situation in Syria.  A treaty is in place regarding the use of chemical weapons, and we are a part of that treaty.  Syria, however, is not.  Circumstantial evidence shows that President Assad's government forces used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians, but evidence does exist that suggests the rebels, backed by various terrorist organizations, may have gassed their own people as a way of deceiving The West, and drawing the United States into the conflict in order to assist them in defeating Assad's forces, of which they have not been doing very well against.  The Middle Eastern country is in the midst of a bloody civil war between two factions that hate the United States equally.  The Syrian Government is aligned with Iran, of whom we have been in constant conflict with, especially since their pursuit of nuclear weapons.  The rebel forces are aligned with known terror groups like al-Qaeda and The Muslim Brotherhood.  We have no horse in the race, be it an ally, or any other national security justification.  In line with the writings of the founders, even any words President Obama may have regarding what is going on in Syria is unjustified.  It is, as John Adams would suggest, a foreign entanglement that we have no business getting involved in.  In fact, as he told Thomas Jefferson regarding the war between Britain and France, we shouldn't even be picking sides.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary