The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Mark Levin's Response to Tom Woods

(See in situ)

Mark Levin's Response to Tom Woods

From Facebook:

Professor Thomas Woods cutting and pasting history for a dogma
by Mark Levin on Sunday, March 27, 2011 at 9:40am

I'm embarrassed for Woods. He knows I know he's a propagandist on this issue. His misuse of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, and other quotes here and there is politically expedient. There's nothing scholarly about it.

Of course it is wise politically and from a policy standpoint for a president to consult with Congress or even seek resolutions to support military actions. It also helps prevent Congress from cutting off funding down the road. In certain cases, particularly where military operations involve the very survival of the nation such as WWII, the president would be wise to seek a war declaration that informs the world of our nation's intention to destroy another society. In the few occasions Congress has declared war, most involved WWII. This is what the Framers intended. But it is not and never has been a constitutional requisite to making war. And Woods knows it.

History, facts, experience, and events prove the Left and Paulists wrong, like Woods, but they are true believers so it doesn't matter. Woods would fundamentally alter our constitutional construct respecting war, the executive, and legislative functions, fabricating additional power in Congress- even authorizing one House of Congress under the War Powers Act to ensure defeat on the battlefield if the battle is not completed in 90 days through a silent veto- while denuding the commander-in-chief power. Is that what they said at the Constitutional Convention? Is that supported anywhere in our history? Is that how Congress is to legislate under the Constitution? Utter nonsense.

What bothers Woods, et al, is that defunding military operations is not easy work politically or legislatively. It requires veto proof congressional action. So he insists on an easier way out. But there is none. I've discussed it at length on my show and here, and I've posted several scholarly links as well.

If Woods doesn't agree with the Framers, if he wants to change the Constitution, giving Congress additional powers to end military operations, giving Congress an operational role in military affairs, or requiring congressional approval before military operations commence, then he should make that case for a constitutional amendment and stop deceiving and demanding short cuts. But he wont. He has calculated that Congress, the states, and ultimately the public won't support such an effort. He's an activist who demands fidelity not to the Constitution but his ideology. The liberal activists do the same. Neither are originalists.!/notes/mark-levin/professor-thomas-woods-cutting-and-pasting-history-for-a-dogma/10150115797525946

TinyURL of Facebook page:

Preview of TinyURL of Facebook page: