Editorial -- Biden’s Escalation in Ukraine Unconstitutional

A few weeks ago, Paul Venable, the Constitution Party candidate for US Senate, came to Worth County and talked about the 12th Amendment and the proper procedure for states to select electors. Thursday night, he came to Nodaway County and talked about the ability, under the 14th Amendment, to remove elected federal officials for treason.

Here is our own contribution to the discussion. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the sole power to declare war on another nation. This means that regardless of what one thinks of Putin’s “Special Military Operation,” it is not Joe Biden’s place to escalate that conflict, even if one thinks that Ukraine’s cause is right and just. Only Congress can declare that a state of war exists between the US and the Russian Federation. As of this writing (Friday, July 15th, 2022), Congress has not seen fit to do so.

There were only four conflicts that we ever should have gotten involved in. The Revolutionary War was a matter of throwing off a dictatorial British regime that sought to exploit us for profit and abolish our civil liberties. In the case of the Civil War along with World Wars I and II, our national existence was in danger. As for the attacks on 9/11, we should have declared war on Al-Qaeda, gone into Afghanistan, gotten Bin Laden (preferably alive), and gotten out again. 

When President Truman ordered US forces into combat in Korea, ostensibly to protect it against Communism, it created a dangerous precedent since it did not involve a formal declaration of war against North Korea. Since then, other Presidents have ordered forces into combat without a declaration of war, such as Reagan (Libya, Grenada, Lebanon), Bush I (Panama), Obama (Libya, Syria, Iraq), among other instances.

The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As such, he can order forces into combat to repel sudden attacks against the US or its allies. But in the case of the sudden Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress rushed into session that afternoon and declared war. The President can also deploy US forces in situations that do not amount to war, such as when Bush I deployed troops to Saudi Arabia after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, or any number of Presidents since 1952 deploying troops to Europe to protect NATO. But what the President cannot do is declare war on another country.

The power to declare war was given to Congress for a reason, to prevent the exact sort of situation that is happening between the US and Russia – a situation where two men with a personal grudge against each other are escalating a conflict to the point that billions of lives are in danger. 

Missouri House Passes Legislation Calling for Article V Constitutional Convention

The Missouri House has advanced legislation sponsored by state Rep. Eric Burlison to protect the freedoms of Missouri citizens and all Americans by convening an Article V Convention of States. Burlison said the convention would be an important step toward restraining the abuses of power perpetrated by the federal government.

Burlison’s HCR 57 would call for the convention of the states to propose amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and members of Congress.

The resolution notes that the founding fathers “empowered state legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the federal government and the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending.” The resolution also notes that the federal government has “invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent” and “has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States”.

“Our founding fathers made it clear that states should be ready and willing to defend our liberties when the federal government abuses its authority. The convention of states is our vehicle to push back against the continued overreach from Washington, D.C. and I hope we will see other states join us as we work to rein in a federal government that has grown out of control,” said Burlison, R-Springfield.

Under Article V of the United States Constitution, two thirds of the states can come together to call a “convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states.”

Burlison’s legislation now moves to the Senate for consideration.

Opinion: We’ll Never Agree on the Role of Government...And That’s Fine

The conventional wisdom has settled on the subject of this year’s presidential campaign: it’s about the proper role of government in our nation’s life. This is a good argument to have, but don’t expect it to be resolved by the election. Americans have been debating the question since before the Constitution was drawn up, and we haven’t come to terms on it yet.

 

At the moment, we’ve got a Republican challenger who embraces the conservative conviction that government must be as limited as possible. In this view, much of what government spends is wasted; Ronald Reagan’s comment, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is our problem,” is its mantra. Conservatives want to reduce regulation, make cutting taxes the highest priority, propose handing Medicaid and other responsibilities to the states as block grants, and consider a more active government the wrong answer in almost every case. Privatization, contracting out, and a private sector freed from the intrusive hand of government will be the engines of a stronger society.

 

Against this view we have a Democratic incumbent, backed by liberals who see value in government’s role. They are concerned about social inequality, support a publicly funded safety net, and are prepared to levy the taxes needed to pay for it. In this view, public spending is necessary to stimulate the economy when needed and regulation is vital to checking the excesses of the market. There are times, this side would argue, when a muscular government is indispensable to our national fortunes — properly deployed, government can expand opportunities to achieve the American dream.

 

The gap between these views seems unbridgeable — especially in the midst of a presidential contest between two parties whose interest lies in highlighting their differences. Yet in the end this fundamental political gulf is not as wide as it appears.

 

This is because the real question in governing is rarely, “What is the ideologically proper thing to do?” Instead, it’s how do we run the country day-to-day? And how do we get a diverse group of politicians to make progress on our current problems while putting aside the problems they cannot solve? When Wall Street crashes or natural calamity strikes or schools fail, the pragmatism of the moment always comes to the fore, no matter what ideology elected officials espouse.

 

Which is where most Americans find themselves. They don’t consider government to be all good or all evil. They want it to work well and efficiently, be as productive as the private sector, exert itself to keep the market functional but not so much that it over-regulates business, and get a handle on entitlements so that they’re sustainable over the long term. Most Americans believe that we cannot prosper unless government builds infrastructure, protects property rights, helps develop the economy, sustains basic scientific research, undergirds the development of human capital, and protects the social safety net.

 

In essence, government is a tool — it’s one of the ways that we as Americans meet the challenges that confront us, whether it’s fighting a terrorist attack or educating our children, safeguarding our retirement, undergirding commerce, and protecting the country’s natural treasures for everyone to enjoy. Government may not be the highest, broadest purpose of the nation, but most people recognize that without it, we cannot prosper.

 

So while many people may feel that Washington has too much power, they still want it to protect their interests. This is why we’ll probably never reach a consensus on the proper role of government. We are more likely to work out solutions issue by issue, trying to reach a pragmatic solution for the problem we face.

 

The nation’s current fiscal difficulties will surely force government to do less than many people want, and the public sector will have to become smarter, more productive, and more efficient.  This is not a bad thing. But no matter who is in charge, we are unlikely to veer too far left or too far right, because the debate over the proper role of government will remain unsettled. And that’s not a bad thing, either.

 

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Opinion: "We can't let the Constitution get in the way of a good war, can we?"

by Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX)
Remarks made on the House Floor June 16, 2011

Mr. Speaker, President Obama has unilaterally brought America into its third war— the war in Libya. The Constitution provides that Congress, not the Executive, should decide to go to war with other nations. Even the War Powers Resolution does not give the President the omnipotent power to continue this war. The resolution says that there must have been an attack on the United States or that the war is in the national security interest of the United States. Neither has occurred. Also, the War Powers Resolution requires a ceasing of hostility after 60 days unless there is congressional approval. Congress has not approved this war.

The President’s new innovative argument for this war is that the United States is not really engaged in hostilities in Libya; therefore, we are not at war. I assume war is in the eyes of the beholder. Mr. Speaker, throughout history, national executives have justified wars because, well, they’ve wanted to go to war. The Constitution and the law have been trampled on by this march to war.

But we cannot let the Constitution get in the way of a ‘‘good war,’’ can we? And that’s just the way it is.

Word on the Street: Congressional Bill Gives Obama Unlimited Warmaking Authority

It seems that certain politicians are drawing the wrong lessons from the killing of Osama Bin Laden. It seems that more and more, they are obsessed with the Middle East. But my question is, what about Middle America.

Tipped off by a Ron Paul website, we learned that certain members of Congress are preparing to sneak in a provision that gives President Barack Obama the authority to initiate unilateral military action whenever he chooses. Now we don't always agree with Ron Paul. But on this issue, he makes perfect sense -- this is a blatant disregard for the American Constitution and its requirement that Congress be the one to declare war.

Think about it -- if you're a Democrat, would you give former President George Bush or Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney this kind of blank check authority? If you're a Republican, would you give Hillary Clinton this kind of authority?

It was never the intent of the Founding Fathers to give our country that sort of authority -- they constantly warned against excessive foreign entanglements. Even the Taliban has declared good riddance to Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden planned and implemented a war of aggression against the US, including the tragic 9/11 attacks. So now that he is dead, the question becomes, what are we doing in Afghanistan?

The rest needs to be up to the Afghan people. It is not our business to referee a civil war between various tribal factions. And it is not our business to get involved in civil wars anywhere around the globe. Suppose Obama uses his newfound powers responsibly. Fine. But what guarantee is there that the next President of either party won't misuse those blank check powers whenever he or she sees fit, without any kind of accountability from Congress whatsoever?

And the more that our government drains our treasury for fighting wars around the globe, the less money that we have for repairing our roads, adequately funding our schools, or developing our low income areas of this country. Warmaking needs to be a careful decision that should be deliberated by people who are in a position to understand the terrible human toll that wars create. Our Senators and Congressmen are in a much better position to understand the human consequences of war because they have to answer to the people every so often. The President is much more isolated from this. And besides, our system is a system of checks and balances -- to give one man the power to make unlimited wars around the globe upsets the system of checks and balances that our founders so carefully designed. For the sake of the Constitution and for the sake of funding our roads, schools, and children, our Congress needs to reject this insane proposition.

Republican-dominated General Assembly tries again for state power over health care

The Republican-dominated General Assembly is making yet another effort to exempt Missouri from President Barack Obama's federal health-care reforms.

The House Rules Committee voted Monday to pass a bill to the House floor that would add Missouri to the multi-state Health Care Compact, which is pushing for state regulation of health care. The compact would supersede federal regulations if Congress agrees.

Regulating health care is too complex for the federal government and should be under state jurisdiction, according to the compact.

The bill passed the committee by a 6-4 vote, even though the bill's sponsor, Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Springfield, was not present.

The bill's co-sponsor, Rep. Timothy Jones, R-Eureka, the Republican floor leader, said he favors the compact as a means of giving states a unified front.

"Compacts have proven to be a good way for states to get together on an issue of similar concern and move those issues forward," Jones said.

He said the bill allows states to manage their own health care policies.

"I think the states are best positioned to be in charge of their own health-care needs for their health-care populations versus the federal government doing it on a one-size-fits-all model," Jones said.

Rep. Mike Colona, D-St. Louis, voted against sending the bill to the House floor.

"My understanding is that it is another attempt, in essence, to undo the federal health-care mandate," Colona said. "I thought we already voted on that once, twice, maybe three times."

Colona acknowledged that Missouri will continue to have a hard time overturning federal health care because federal laws supersede those of the states under the U.S. Constitution.

"Last time I checked, we're still supposed to abide by federal mandate," Colona said. "If the members of the state of Missouri don't want to comply with the federal mandate, then perhaps we need to elect some new congressmen, new senators and change the president. There's nothing we can do about that in the Missouri General Assembly."

The bill will now move to the House for discussion on the floor.

Barack Obama could be forced to prove citizenship to get on Missouri's ballot

A bill that would require all presidential candidates, including President Barack Obama, to prove their citizenship to Missouri's Secretary of State before getting placed on the state ballot was heard by the House Elections Committee Tuesday [March 1]. Former Secretary of State GOP candidate Mitch Hubbard said Missouri should check the federal government and enforce proof of citizenship. "Hawaii, during the years our president was born, issued short-form birth certificates to people who were born in Hawaii ... but because it had just recently become a state, they also issued short-form birth certificates to people who were not born in Hawaii, but who were living there as children at the time," Hubbard said. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Lyle Rowland, R-Cedar Creek. He said no one on the federal level is checking the Article II Constitutional qualifications of candidates. He said the Missouri Secretary of State should require presidential citizenship documents, like those required by candidates for other offices. Rep. Joe Fallert, D-Ste. Genevieve, said federal law under the Constitution already prevents unqualified citizens from running for president. "If federal law would say you have to be a citizen of the U.S. to do this, why do we have to double check?" Fallert asked. "I'm just curious because it's like we're a solution looking for a problem because federal law would preempt this already." Naturalized citizen Hector Maldonado was born in Mexico. He said when running for the U.S. Senate last year, he had to provide proof of citizenship to the Missouri Secretary of State, and thus wants presidential candidates to have to do the same. "This next coming election, if I choose to do so, I can run for U.S. President, and no one's going to stop me until I actually hold office ... but by then, it's too late," Maldonado said. House Elections Committee members said they do not know when the bill will be heard again.

Cindy Sheehan challenges legitimacy of Congress

Take it or leave it -- Cindy Sheehan says that with the passage of the Patriot Act, Congress, by gutting the Bill of Rights, has essentially made itself illegitimate.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/The-USA-MATRIOT-Act-by-Cindy-Sheehan-110218-757.html

Editorial: Nullification Part II -- Reopening the Debates of the 19th Century

Recently, we have been going through bills at both the state and federal levels just to let people know what is going on and what changes are coming down the pipe that affect us locally. But Senate Joint Resolution 15 is a continuation of efforts by certain members of the Republican party and the right wing to turn back the clock by the concept of nullification.

Nullification was a tool used by the South before the Civil War to nullify certain acts of Congress that they felt they should not have to obey. The problem is that this debate has already been settled by the Civil War and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution -- Federal law always trumps state law. After all, when we go to the Allendale 4th of July Breakfast or other such celebrations around the area, we celebrate the United States of America -- not the Great State of Missouri.

Ignoring the obvious lessons of history, certain politicians successfully passed the Great Nullification Act of 2010; as passed by the voters, it states that Missouri does not have to obey the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress. This may be a moot issue -- two courts have already rightly ruled that the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. We think that the Supreme Court will uphold those rulings given the 5-4 conservative majority of the court.

But certain politicians in the Missouri Senate seemingly do not leave enough alone -- they are proposing to put an issue on the ballot that would nullify just about everything that they find objectionable. First of all, it declares that Missouri is declaring its "constitutional sovereignty" by asserting its rights under the 10th Amendment, which states that all powers not delegated to the federal government are delegated to the states and people. Fine. But SJR 15 goes way beyond that by stating that Missouri governmental agencies cannot enforce any of the following acts of the federal government:

--Acts regarding the Right to Bear Arms;

--Acts legalizing or funding abortions;

--Federal actions requiring the sale or trade of carbon credits or cap and trade;

--The Affordable Care Act;

--Recognition of gay marriages or civil unions;

--Federal hate crimes legislation;

--Laws upholding separation of church and state;

--Laws restricting the right to home school or enroll children in a private or parochial school.

But this is the kicker -- the next section states that their interpretation of the Constitution is the only valid interpretation. For instance, they state that it can't be interpreted as a living, breathing document, ignoring the fact that Jefferson himself believed it to be such and stated that he understood that future generations would interpret the Constitution much differently than how they understood it. If the right wishes to have a debate about the scope of the Constitution and how broadly or narrowly we should interpret it, fine. But the problem with this bill is that it forecloses this debate.

The next section allows Missouri citizens to bring a cause of action to enforce this amendment. This is news to us -- for the last 20 years, the right has constantly been complaining about what they call "frivolous lawsuits" and "lawsuit abuse." Now, they would open the door to numerous lawsuits. The problem with this approach is that certain people would bring lawsuits for any law that they didn't like personally under this and tie up the Court system and waste taxpayer time and resources.

It was never the intent of the Founding Fathers that everything that I like or you like would pass. The exact opposite is true -- ours is a system of checks and balances. People realize this -- Massachusetts has a Republican senator, for instance. The problem here is that "I don't like it" does not mean "unconstitutional." And if the Senate Republicans are concerned about the rule of law and they don't like the current policies of the federal government and want to get rid of them, then do it legally. Open a debate about the role that the government should play versus the states. File a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act like many people already have and go to the courts. Elect people that will overturn it. It is not credible or helpful to the cause to complain about what is seen as a lack of respect for the rule of law on the part of the federal government and then turn around and use an archaic legal tool that went out with the Civil War.