Anyone that screws with us we respond by obliterating them. In such a situation the National Guard would be used for clean up of what was left.

The Nuclear arsenal could be maintained under the Navy and various state National Guard silos kind of like the missile defense fittingly “minute men”. While the military equipment is basically off the shelf stuff, regularly bought to service the duel roll of the National Guard. The only real problem is the fact that we need Labs (to maintain the Nuclear Arsenal.(they got shelf lives) I would agree in terms of the modern world simply going without such a thing won’t cut it anymore, when enemies can wage massive lighting wars across States with weapons that can quickly devastate all. We need nuclear deterrent capability. Beyond that we don’t “need” much else strictly speaking, because once you have nuked your enemy back to the stone age there is not all that much left to fight and your main problem is the probably nuclear devastation here at home.

There is of course a possibility that their army escapes the devastation and rather then returning home to rebuild their country continues with an invasion. In which case they will be ill-supplied, and running on browed time due to their homeland being in no position to supply or reinforce them. To deal with that reckless revenge assault we need only a scorch earth / delaying strategy of attrition. Knowing that its only a matter of time before their army falls apart due to having no base of support.

We merely have to outlast them while denying them any new base of support, the National guard even equipped with inferior weapons and numbers could accomplish that goal using a variety of techniques primarily rooted from our home field advantage. (The name of the game is denial of resources (no new supplies) and avoidance of direct encounters until their inevitable supply based collapse, not head on conflict. IE: Guerrilla War.)

Michael Boldin as you well know, commerce power of the Federal government is power over trade between States with each other, foreign States, and Indian tribes. I honestly do not think there is a lot to discuss there other then that power being a far more limited power then the all encompassing power the court after the 1930’s clamed it to be.

In any case the scope of our disagreement is on relatively small and minor issues, nothing to write home or to each other about, I am clearly the inferior party here only making suggestions for consideration. I do not pretend to know more about this then you or have any right to decide policy or topic. I apologize for my outburst on such matters.

“Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” I for one would certainly like to see a government that lives out this phrase: consistently and reliably funding a well-equipped and capable military, while using it for defensive purposes only. However, like so many other things, this philosophy is not found in either major political party.

But, foreign policy – and any policy conducted by the federal government is open for discussion on a website dedicated to constitutional governance. Otherwise, are you claiming that we shouldn’t discuss the commerce power? The federal government is clearly authorized to regulate commerce – so should we just ignore how they use that power to make sure we don’t alienate a certain subset of people who might be supporters?

The thing is – the Tenth Amendment Center is not a political party – so our goal is not to do what’s most politically prudent. It’s to provide a forum for education on what is the proper role of the federal government. Where the constitution is clear, that’s easy. But where it’s not explicit, the debates around the constitution and the explanations and advice of the founders themselves is essential.

As can be seen in this article and elsewhere, the founders were seriously concerned about the war powers – and foreign policy. It received considerable discussion not only in the ratifying conventions, but in advocates of the constitution – the federalist papers too.

If there was something other than a near-consensus from on the founders and ratifiers on how these powers should be used by the federal government, then it would make sense to provide examples from them on how “aggressive” or “offensive” war should be used as a policy tool of the government. If you can find anything in line with that in the debates over the constitution, the ratifying conventions, the federalist and anti-federalist papers and the like – I encourage you to point that out.