They Said If We Voted for McCain We’d Be Sending Our Troops to Fight in Endless Wars

Yep, that’s the Nobel Peace Prize President.

I think, when considering situations like this, it is always a good idea to review Justice Jackson’s concurrence from Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, where he lays out the constitutional boundaries and analysis of the executive’s power. For what it’s worth, I suspect we are in number 2.

“1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government, as an undivided whole, lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables, rather than on abstract theories of law.

3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”

You raise fair and important questions, c matt. The single most difficult question a superpower confronts is defining its interests. A narrow definition would include only those things that happen within its borders, acknowledging that other nations are responsible for their own problems and borders. Sure, a country could take measures that adversely affect our standard of living, but it is not obvious why we should properly define our interests to include such measures and consequences. A generous definition would include any measures and consequences that greatly affect worldwide stability. The strongest kid in the playground may have responsibilities that extend beyond self-interest narrowly defined. Determining the precise boundaries of a nation’s interest and its responsibilities is an exercise of prudence at its most difficult, since it must take into account the art of the possible as well as the assessment of consequences. Ron Paul’s definition would likely have resulted in policies that would have kept us out of WWII. Perhaps that would have been for the best, but that is hardly obvious.

I wonder though if there isn’t something in the background of this that we are missing.

I can’t see any political benefit to this move. This article got me thinking and, although I have no independent knowledge on which to base an opinion, I am inclined to stand down from opposing the policy until I better understand the stakes.

http://www.riskwatchdog.com/2011/10/17/what-is-the-us-up-to-in-uganda-and-can-hollande-beat-sarkozy-in-2012/

Yeah, anybody is who takes issue with Ron Paul’s isolationism is not only a Zionist and a neo-con, but also a Glenn Beck groupie. Gheesh. Some people blame Bush; others the Joooooos.

Phil,
FDR undertook policies that incurred the wrath of both Japan and Germany precisely by defining our national interest broadly in ways that were incompatible with the aims of those fascist states. It is highly doubtful that Paul would have undertaken similar policies, meaning that Japan would have been able to achieve its ends without attacking Pearl Harbor, meaning no declaration of war and ensuing reciprocal declarations with Germany. Without US intervention the outcome of WWII would likely have been very different.

Mr. McClarey’s vicious response was uncalled for. My initial comment did not warrant his response.

What part of his response was vicious? I’m not seeing it.