WAR-DECLARING vs. WAR-MAKING

(The following was sent to Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia on April 8, 2014)

I just read your piece in Sunday's Richmond, Virginia Times-Dispatch about "clarifying" the war-making process here in the US.  I have evolved from being a war "hawk" during the Vietnam days to being a vehement opponent of the way Congress has evaded its solemn duty to TOTALLY control the manner by which the US is committed to offensive war.

I am not here advocating that Congress micromanage war once started, though the funding process is ongoing and should never become a rubber-stamp process, as it has so often in the past, at least since WWII.  Contrary to what the Supreme Court held back in the 1960's, it is patently ludicrous to suggest that the "Commander in Chief" language of Article II of the Constitution carries with it an implicit power to "make" war.  Article I, Section 8 reserves to Congress ONLY the power to DECLARE (not approve, not endorse, not bless) War.  Otherwise, any offensive military tactics are simply wrong.  Congress needs to quit hiding behind the Supreme Court's robes!

There is no question that the armed forces have a fundamental right to defend themselves in the event of attack.  I am not questioning that, but to then proceed to execute OFFENSIVE tactics is simply not allowed absent a formal declaration of war.  The 10th Amendment limits the federal government to only those powers "delegated" thereto.  So, there are simply no such things as "implicit" federal powers, regardless of whatever some majority of the Supreme Court may say from time to time, yet it is with wishful thinking and imperious notions of convenience that impel the Supreme Court, Members of Congress and the President into fabricating all sorts of "implications" that serve their aggrandizing or cowardly ends.

The Founders made things "inconvenient" on purpose!

The Founders were quite perceptive in burdening Congress with the war-creation process: a formally declared war (like WWII) more effectively unites the people behind the shared sacrifices, and the corollary is that the Congress will not declare a war not supported by a large majority of the people.  Each is a check on the other, and for obviously good reason.  Otherwise, we wind up in a quagmire created by a President needing to prove his manhood by kicking some "wogs'" disrespectful asses!  Korea!  Vietnam!  Eastern Europe!  Iraq!  Afghanistan!  How many more of these utter stupidities is the Congress or the Supreme Court going to tolerate?

You must answer that question!  I for one will never tolerate being stampeded into witless support of some cowboy adventure because somebody dares to question my patriotism!  You know that is EXACTLY what happened when the nonsense started in Iraq, and what do we have to show for all that now?  "Mission Accomplished"?  Where is all that "free oil" that Dick Cheney promised?

I am not unmindful nor dismissive of the legitimate desires to protect the defenseless from tyranny, slaughter, etc., but if the US citizens and taxpayers are to be forcefully dragooned into such efforts, then the Congress ought to have the courage to control that process and spell it out in such a way that we can understand and embrace the intended efforts.  There is usually no hurry for any of that!  I am not opposing war at all costs; I am demanding that the Constitution be followed when war is to be made.  That is my RIGHT as a citizen, not merely as a taxpayer!  I have a fundamental, inherent right as an American that all three branches of government strictly adhere to MY Constitution!

I have spent most of my professional life as a lawyer becoming intimately familiar with the US and Va. Constitutions.  (I have also been doing some recent analysis of the Confederate Constitution!)  Constitutions are one of my hobbies, if you will.  I keep several copies of the US Constitution handy, each in a variety of locations so that I may consult it frequently, whenever the impulse strikes.  I have never found ANYWHERE therein that the President is authorized to initiate offensive war, so I think the Supreme Court was wrong to rule thusly.  I recall the Vietnam nonsense was based on a validation of Congress's "Tonkin Gulf Resolution" which was deemed to be the "equivalent" of a declaration of war.  Hogwash!

My viewpoint has many powerful opponents; I realize that.  But you have an opportunity to lead the Congress into doing the right thing, and I hope you will try.  Even if you fail, you should be prepared to go down in flames!