Restraining Presidential Warmaking

Here's an idea I had the other day. The problem is that, despite the fact that the constitution lodges the power to declare war in Congress, the President's status as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, combined with the existence of a standing army, enables the President to prosecute wars, particularly small ones, without orders to do so from Congress. At present, the only way to deal with this is impeachment: Congress would have to impeach the president to stop him from commanding the armed forces to commit acts of war.

An additional protection could be added. Congress could pass a bill, perhaps an addendum to the War Powers Act, perhaps something else, doing three things. First, it would explicitly reaffirm the Constitutional arrangement: Congress declares War, and any acts of war outside such a declaration is illegal. Secondly, it would approve and encourage the refusal of deployment and combat orders not sanctioned by Congress by military personnel, and declare that persons being court marshaled for refusing orders on these grounds have a right to have their case heard in a civilian court.

California IOUs

So the budget problem in California has gotten bad enough that instead of paying their suppliers and contractors with Federal Reserve Notes (aka US Dollars), they're paying some with IOUs. This is the result of a system that makes it very difficult for the legislature to raise taxes, alongside a initiative system that makes it very easy for "citizens" (actually groups with enough money to circulate and advertise the petitions necessary to get initiatives on the ballot) to force spending. Like that isn't going to result in a problem?

But what I'm wondering about is this: are IOUs technically the same thing as "Bills of Credit", which are forbidden to the States under Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constition? Would anyone care if they were?

The Constitution is not a living document. It is quite dead, in my opinion.

Iraq: Why Leaving Slowly Isn't Enough

A subject that came up recently was Why I Didn't Vote in 2008, and my answer was Obama Wasn't Going To Leave Quickly Enough. But pressed with the question, what's so great about leaving quickly, Leaving The Iraqis Out To Dry, I found myself unable to answer. While cleaning up after dinner, I found myself musing on the subject, and I think I have an answer.

I'd forgotten, since it'd been a moot point for some time now, but originally, the Iraq (totally not a) War was not, for me, about America vs. The Terrorists, or America vs. the Islamist Extremists, or America vs. The Insurgents, or any form of America vs. Those Guys Over There. I was well aware that nobody in Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks (or at least, nobody that anybody knew of). So far as I was concerned, America had nothing to do with anything going on in Iraq. Regardless of whoever else was involved across the seas (in this case, the enemy of my enemy is definitely not my friend, nor does he need to be), the Iraq War (sic) was to me about a coalition of military suppliers, oil companies, Iraqi exiles, others who thought they might gain from the conflict, and a few genuinely deluded souls, vs. the American People, and our Constitution.

It is my understanding that military officers, congressmen, and the President himself swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, "foreign or domestic." My opinion: exiles seeking to embroil this nation in their own conflict? Foreign enemies. Big business interests seeking the same end for their own purposes? Domestic enemies. I was well aware that the "conflict" part of the Iraq "War" would end during the next administration, regardless of who won the election. The only question was, would it happen quickly enough to burn those who were reaping an advantage from the fight? Would it be a victory over the enemies of the Constitution, both Foreign and Domestic? Because that's what the election of 2008 was about, for me.

A quick and total withdrawal from Iraq would have hurt the balance sheets of the military supply companies reaping American tax dollars, by bringing a swift end to the practice. For the big oil companies, dreams of securing advantageous contracts with a compliant Iraqi government established with other people's money would have quickly gone up in smoke. The exiles who lobbied to have us fight their enemies for them would have suddenly found that their "allies" had signed a separate peace... their own plans foiled.

And what of the Iraqi People, who had to go through military invasion and occupation, all for naught? The people whose hearts bleed fat the thought are often the very same people for whom there is an acceptable level of "collateral damage" (that is, the destruction of the lives and livelihoods of noncombatants) to be had in war. So lets just call it that: the fate of the Iraqis after we "leave them hanging" or whatever is "collateral damage"... with a difference: neither I, nor anyone else involved in our side of the conflict are the ones pulling triggers and pushing buttons, if indeed the nightmare scenarios painted by some supporters of the "slow withdrawal" are, in fact, the actual result.