Positive Liberty

One of the reasons I have been very interested in Ron Paul’s campaign is his opposition to the War in Iraq and the possible conflicts with Iran and in Pakistan. I am opposed to unprovoked, preemptive war.

Ron Paul has been saying something during his campaign that few people understand — make that very, very few people. Persuasive rhetoric — speaking in terms of concrete benefits — is not his strong suit. He’s an abstract, theoretical thinker, and so asserting that “we don’t even the declare the wars anymore,” is sufficient, to both he and his supporters. He said it. The point is made.

But every time Paul says this, he meets with smirks and giggles by his opponents. His supporters have tended to think that those smirks are due to some anti-Constitutional, pomposity. But those giggles are because, once again, he’s wasting his breath. Very few understand what is at stake.

Some have gone one step further and suggested that the wars, such as the one we presently have in Iraq, are indeed declared. Congress “authorized” them. That is, they took a vote to give the President discretion on the use of force.

But they can’t give that discretion to the President. It’s un-Constitutional (illegal). And that’s Ron Paul’s point.

It might seem like Ron Paul, and people who agree with him — such as, yours truly — are separating pepper from fly poop. Are we asking for a mere formality — that the resolution actually be called “a Declaration of War with (say) Bumstinkistan?”

This is not a question of formality. It’s a question of separation of powers.

Today, while reading part of a sermon by Fr. Earle Fox, a light bulb flicked on over my head. Here is the inspiring section:

Government is coercive force — as my dictionary says, “direction and control”. Direction is established by legislation, the set of rules governing what will be mandated or forbidden. Control is established by the Executive branch, which wields the gun (sword, billy club, etc.) of enforcement. The judiciary decides who has violated the law and the appropriate punishment.

The separation of these three “powers” of government is the key to taming government so that it will be a servant of the people, not a task master.

The question is who will make the decisions about how coercion will be used, and who will wield the mechanism of control? In ancient monarchies, typically, the monarch held all three roles, which made him like God, unchallengeable and accountable to no one on earth.

So the essence of the “separation” is that he who makes the decisions on how the gun will be used may not hold the gun, and he who holds the gun may not make the decisions. The person being limited is the one holding the gun. In all cases, he is held down by the chains of the Constitution to obedience to the representatives of the people. But legislators, who decide how the gun will be used are also limited. They may not hold the gun, i.e., to coerce the vote.

For the separation of powers system to work properly, each branch is supposed to be jealous of the few powers it’s granted — unwilling to allow the other branches to usurp their powers.

When the Congress, which has the authority to declare war, turns their power over to the President, to use at his discretion, they are engaged in “delegation.” Delegation is un-Constitutional. It breaks the separation of powers.

What is delegation? Well, the example I like to refer to when I’m explaining DownsizeDC.org’s Write the Laws Act, is that of a two friends…

Let’s say we’re friends. You own a fancy sports car — like a Ferrari or something. You’re traveling out of town, and you ask me to watch your property, and even give me the keys to your car. You give me, and only me, permission to use the car for short drives. But no sooner do you leave town than I invite my friend over and give them the chance to take the car for a test spin.

Both you giving me permission to drive your Ferrari and my giving permission to my friends to drive your Ferrari are examples of delegation. The former is permissible; the latter is wrong.

But the difference between the two is not a mere formality. It’s not trivial.

I did not have THE RIGHT to delegate that which I did not own. And, in point of fact, civil governments have no rights. Our government has powers, delegated to it by the owners of those powers, The People. This is called a social contract.

Thus, when the Constitution says, Congress declares war, but only the President can administer the war, a line is drawn. The Congress says, “When,” and the President says, “How.”

Declarations of war are specific and limited commands to use force until a specific objective has been completed.

Congress must not merely “authorize the use of force,” they must put their full power behind a declaration with intent for victory. And, they must set the standard by which victory can be measured because when the mission ends is not the President’s decision either.

And once victory is achieved, life should return to normal.

We should no longer tolerate the centralization of power in an executive — a monarchy — that decides both the when and the how of military force.

I believe Congress would have the ability to declare victory as well; de-authorize and bring the troops home (though it’s still a little unclear to me just how they would assert this in the present environment).

But the difference between a “declaration of war” and “an authorization for the use of force” is not a mere semantic difference. A mere authorization is a constitutional crime in the making.

• The President cannot possess such broad discretion.
• Congress cannot be that hobbled in the executive’s presence.

If the President does have that power, then we will have “perpetual wars for perpetual peace” until that power is removed — or the Constitutional balance (separation of powers) is rightly restored. The latest incarnations of perpetual war include John McCain’s, 100 years, if necessary, military presence (war) in Iraq or 60 years in Korea.

That can’t be what the Founders intended.

Hardball Delenda Est

Trackback URI |