By: Doug Berge

Apparently Rick Santorum is cut from the same fabric as Barack Obama when it comes to congressional declarations of war, as required by the Constitution.

On Jan. 9, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum spoke outside MaryAnn’s Café in Manchester, N.H. Once inside, the former Pennsylvania senator told one customer that he would use a strategic military strike against Iran, claiming that this strike would not be considered an act of war. When the customer asked Santorum if he would ask for authorization from Congress to initiate a military strike, Santorum said he would consult Congress, but didn’t need to ask permission because Obama didn’t need permission to strike Libya.

Santorum engages in some “fuzzy math.” He apparently thinks two wrongs somehow make a right. Santorum sounds more like a third-grader justifying his position to little Jonnie regarding the rules in the playground. Only this is about American soldiers’ lives and Americas’ future. And the last time we checked a “strategic military strike” was an act of war.

Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution says, “The Congress shall have power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Nothing in our Constitution gives the president the power to unilaterally order a strategic military strike the way we’ve seen in recent years.

A good offense might make a good defense, but the Constitution is the Constitution, and a good offense requires a declaration of war from Congress.

The War Powers Act of 1973 states in section 2, paragraph (a), “It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.” Paragraph (c) states; “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

The first question that immediately comes to mind here is: if the War Powers Act was really passed with the intent stated – “It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States” – then why even bother with the Act? Just follow the Constitution. If The War Powers Act is the document that Obama and Santorum argue justifies their actions, then why do they violate, or in Santorums’ case advocate violating, paragraph (c) numbers one and three?

Obama defiantly violated the Constitution when he initiated offensive military action against Libya without a declaration of war. Santorum clearly intends to follow the same path with Iran. After all, it must be OK. Obama did it. This raises the question: what difference exists between Obama and Santorum.

Answer: none.

Two peas in a war  pod.

A look at Obamas’ and Santorums’ voting records reveals a fundamental similarity between these two supposed antagonists. They both repeatedly violated the Constitution.

The “fourth branch of government,” aka the establishment media (in this case the NY Times and here and here) justifies their actions, declaring that “more power has lodged in the white house than on capitol Hill.” Funny thing, this was clearly not the intention of the framers.

James Madison expressed his distrust of the executive branch, especially in the realm of war powers, many times. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Madison wrote.

“The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

As with all unconstitutional acts, executive orders and provisions buried in lengthy legislation, designed to circumvent the Constitution, sponsors and supporters of these bills seek a ruling in their favor from the Supreme Court of the United States to justify their position. Further, when the Supreme Court rules in favor of these unconstitutional Acts, all three branches of government are in violation of our Constitution.

Become a member and support the TAC!

So much for balance of power.

Pundits constantly play up the supposed conflict between the two parties, portraying them as polar opposites. But when it comes to violating the Constitutional delegation of war powers, they generally draw up their strategy from the same playbook. Obama and Santorum illustrate this reality.

Two peas in a war pod.

Doug Berge [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Rhode Island Tenth Amendment Center.


Concordia res parvae crescunt


Small things grow great by concord...

Tenth Amendment Center


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


FOLLOW US

Get in Touch

10 + 3 =


MAIL:
PO BOX 13458
Los Angeles, CA 90013


PHONE:
213.935.0553

The 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

LEARN MORE

01

Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles

02

Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog

03

State of the Nullification Movement

108 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report

01

Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty

02

maharrey minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens. maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues - history, and application today

TENTHER ESSENTIALS

Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!

JOIN TAC

01

The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose - the "Foundation of the Constitution."

10th Amendment

03

Nullification

Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history - and today.

nullification