Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Chuck Norris :: Townhall.com Columnist
Has the US Run Amuck Constitutionally?
by Chuck Norris
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Who decides whether war continues or not in Iraq? Some might answer Gen. David Petraeus. Others might say Congress. But most probably believe the president has oversight of foreign and war policies. After all, he is the commander in chief, correct?

But to whom did our Founders point? They believed the president's duty is to carry out policy, not make it -- something that is the duty of Congress. That is why so many strict constitutionalists have labeled our battles in Iraq as unconstitutional. Many accuse our president of not only going to war without a congressional declaration but also making other unilateral international policies.

On the other hand, pro-Bush allies say executive government officials always have initiated emergency war decisions, such as in Korea and Vietnam. Still others say Iraq is a continuation of the same Middle East war that began in Afghanistan. Some even point to Thomas Jefferson, who confessed and appealed to Congress in 1801 that he was "unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense" when he sent a small regiment of warships to the Mediterranean to ward off attacks by the Barbary States.

I completely honor and support our service members. That is why I've been to Iraq twice, shaking hands and encouraging nearly 40,000 troops. I believe we ought to enforce our borders better, as well as carry out tactical means abroad to deter terrorism at home. And I don't believe our Founders could have imagined the type of global terrorism we wage war against today. But my devout patriotic support and beliefs do not take away from the fact that we must continue to follow constitutional protocol in engaging in and disengaging from any war.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I'm not pretending to be. But I've gained a great appreciation for our history and Founders. And they didn't bottle up the choices of war in one person, but many. Those are the checks and balances of power they provided for us. Here are a few of their select thoughts:

-- "The Congress shall have Power … To declare War." (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution)

-- "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." (Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution)

-- "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large." (James Wilson, 1787)

-- "The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure." (George Washington, 1793)

-- "The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature. … The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." (James Madison, 1793)

-- "It is the exclusive province of congress to change a state of peace into a state of war." (William Patterson, 1806)

The Ninth and 10th amendments specify that the federal government may not do anything that isn't spelled out in the Constitution. That is why, after citing 200 pages of constitutional abuses and violations by our government, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano concludes in his book "Constitutional Chaos" that the whole government has run amuck constitutionally, and we must question and be leery of its future motivations and decisions:

"If the Constitution is enforced selectively, according to the contemporary wants and needs of the government, we will continue to see public trials in Detroit and secret trials in Newark; free speech suppressed on inexplicable whims; police targeting the weak and killing the innocent; government lying to its citizens, stealing their property, tricking them into criminal acts, bribing its witnesses against them, making a mockery of legal reasoning, and breaking down the laws in order to enforce them. A government that commits crime is not your friend."

Judge Roy Moore warns that even the U.S. Supreme Court needs to be suspect of constitutional abuses. He elaborated in a past column:

"The Constitution of the United States is our rule of law, not the opinions and ideas of justices of the Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy just this month told the American Bar Association, 'Our best security, our only security, is in the world of ideas.' Justice Kennedy's words are particularly alarming as he and his fellow justices actually promote world 'ideas' above the United States Constitution to which they are sworn."

We have reached a critical juncture in the life of our country. And we, the people, must hold our governing officials accountable. That is what our Founders expected and admonished. As Patrick Henry said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Chuck Norris is a columnist and impossible to kill.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Chuck Norris and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
MCCAIN AND STUPIDITY
shouldnt stsrt s letter with an oxymorism
i first got CSpan about a year before Clinton was elected. I can remember getting excited about now being able to participate a little more fully and a little more informed about the election.. Instaqd what amazed me most was the intense hatred, violence, diastrust, etc directed towards clinto,./ I couldnt believe the intensity of it.
now we have Mccain. everything old is new again. only this time its the republicans tearing him apart like the werewolf oif london. i personaly dont like the man and ceertainly dont plan to vote for him. BUT AFTER ALL HE IS YOUR CANDIDATE. DO THE BESTY YOIU CAN. whebn the Spanish landed in Cntral America they wer convinced that the Incas were men with a permanent hand up to their face and a finger attaced to th space between their upper lip and their nose. It took them years to find out that the incas were holding an aromatic plant below their nose, because the Spanish never took baths and they stunk. do the same with Mcain. get your right or left habd and oput it where it will do the most good and accept wthe disaster that has befallen you. maybe mccain will take a bath between now and the election.

Our foolish President
Good article Chuck,

Pres. Bush is a very unintelligent person. Probably the most unread man to ever be President. These neocons are manipulating him . I read Norman Podhoretz's account of his meeting with Bush. Podhoretz told him how bold he was ! What a fool they take Bush for. The son of an intelligent President wants to show his and Dad and the world that he is " his own man " . what a pitiful and sad day in America.

Bush and the neocons
It would have been enough for the US government to enforce the current immigration laws and remove the illegal aliens from our country. I twould have been enough to place a moratorium on immigration. That would be our best practice for containing home grown terrorism. Americans are cooperative: an example is the lady who called the police when she seen a group of young men laughing and filming the twin towers burning. They turned out to be Israelis. Probably Mossad. I like Mike Huckabee's proposal: no dual citizenship allowed.

Why did Townhall leave off the end?
of Chuck's article.

-------------

"If the law restrains us and the government holds us accountable to it, then the Constitution restrains them, and we hold them accountable to it. It is a patriot's duty to uphold and support the Constitution, and confront those who disobey it. After all, it is "our" government. From "our" public schools to "our" capital, if even several thousand of us get more active and vocal about that constitutional accountability, then we can begin to take back our government.

We must remind every governing official that, either they conform and serve in accordance with constitutional patterns or we, the people, will be left with no other alternative but to submit to our founders' initial prescription to remedy bad government. Such a cure is located in the Declaration of Independence, a bit of wisdom that sends shivers up my spine every time I read it. In the case that government reaches the tragic point when it is no longer the guardian of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it admonishes

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. … But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64016


US Still Within The Constitution
Considering that the US Congress gave the President power to remove Hussein from power AND the President has the authority to protect America from ALL enemy threats, including terrorists, it sounds to me that the Media's Congress, ie, the Nancy Pelosis and the Harry Reids, are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

This is all the more reason we need to support conservative Republicans committed to winning the war on terror --- and why we MUST vote in November, why we MUST vote for John McCain, why we MUST vote straight ticket Republican, why we MUST vote ONLY for Republicans, and why we MUST vote against ALL Democrats.

Well Chuck...
If you now say you want to stand with the Constitution, you supported the wrong man. You should've been alongside Ron Paul.


Former Rep Not Dem...
Steel starts losing its strength at 600 degrees F. As a mechanical engineer who designs vessels, I can assure you that at 1200 to 1500 degrees F, it really doesn't have much strength to resist anything. It is in the plastic stage. Most forging and extrusion is done about about 1500 F for this reason. Steel melts at a higher degree (about 2300 F) but that doesn't mean it doesn't lose all its strength first. The estimated temperature from the fire was about 1500 F. The only thing that allowed it to resist as long as it did was what fire protection it had. And that generally is only good for about an hour maximum.

The pancaking is the effect of the above floors landing on a floor for a moment before that floor also fails. The columns are strong as long as they are straight but the impact loads cause them to deflect slightly. That lowers the load they can withstand. So they buckle and drop everything to the next floor.

Talk to any civil/structural engineer. I don't care what the government report stated as to "unknown cause". Civil/structural engineers can easily explain it, far better than I can. And this collapse was classic.

Has the US run amuck ...?
Yes.

The government says they cannot intrude on religion but they can cults. And they make the decision which is which. They say they can censor if required for public good. They say only the state militias can have weapons. They say that the fifth amendment can be used only if in a local court setting. It doesn't work in US courts. About the only amendment they haven't broken is to not house troops in private homes - and it wouldn't suprise me to learn they have broken that one.

Just a thought,
Why do we keep electing lawyers to be our representatives? You watch each one of them raise their right hand and swear to uphold and defend the constitution but you can tell by the look on their face and the tone of their voice that upholding and defending the constitution is the last thing they intend to do. They are there to try and change things to their liking and benefit. Is it any coincidence that most are multi millionaires by the time they leave office? They can't afford to live off their measley government salaries and actually do the job they were elected to do. How many times have we seen numerous extensions before the yearly budget gets passed? They have to take their vacation breaks and leave critical legislation on hold until it suits them to act. We need to start electing people who follow the law and not subvert it.

To YT KnightI
have actually done some of the stress testing on concrete when I worked at Leighton and Assoc. in Orange County, California. Concrete will pulverize into powder and fragments when it fails under load. When the WTC towers fell, there was a vicious cycle of failures as the steel gave way from heat stress, and then transferred load to concrete structure that wasn't designed to handle it. The concrete failed immediately, and then the whole cycle repeated in short order as the building pancaked.

Forget?
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.

-Abraham Lincoln

Every journey begins with the first step
I don't know if he will clean up the town of DC and restore law and order, but at least it's nice to see there are people out there who plainly think a lot of things can be done better, make their arguments at a basic level, appeal to traditional legal values, and begin an honest effort to explain what can be done about it.

Chuck Norris has written well about securing our borders, and here I think he really helped.

SJ Doc
I like that ending as well. Although, your ilk should be the ones reading it more carefully anyways.

Joycey
that is exactly why we have to get back to the constitution. People are not voting for the best interests of the country but rather for a free handout.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." Alexander Tyler 1787

That is exactly what is going on today. "From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." That sentence details the democratic party's strategy of taking power.

RickyLS - It's fair use to quote
--
RickyLS stated:

"Norris' exclusive column at World Net Daily ends even with a MUCH STRONGER ending."


Checking out the WND site, I found it's true. Here's the closing that Townhall edited out:


"If the law restrains us and the government holds us accountable to it, then the Constitution restrains them, and we hold them accountable to it. It is a patriot's duty to uphold and support the Constitution, and confront those who disobey it. After all, it is 'our' government. From 'our' public schools to 'our' capital, if even several thousand of us get more active and vocal about that constitutional accountability, then we can begin to take back our government.

"We must remind every governing official that, either they conform and serve in accordance with constitutional patterns or we, the people, will be left with no other alternative but to submit to our founders' initial prescription to remedy bad government. Such a cure is located in the Declaration of Independence, a bit of wisdom that sends shivers up my spine every time I read it. In the case that government reaches the tragic point when it is no longer the guardian of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it admonishes

"'That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. … But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.'"


Apparently quoting the Declaration of Independence is too "radical" for the Townhall.com proctors.

--

True
hm1342 writes:
Reply # 8
7:28 PM EST
Ever since the Articles of Confederation were tossed out in favor of the Constitution (drawn up in secret with a minimum of delegates present to start) there have been fights over power sharing. Political parties began soon after ratification; indeed, "The Federalist Papers" were factional documents to encourage ratification.
----------
But
All these arguments ceased with the Ratification of the US Constitution in 1791.
It was signed into Law and all accepted the final draft that addressed the arguments with a solution agreed to.
No one is smarter today than the wisdom the Founders all agreed to already.

quote:
Anti-Federalist Papers

During the period from the drafting and proposal of the federal Constitution in September, 1787, to its ratification in 1789 there was an intense debate on ratification. The principal arguments in favor of it were stated in the series written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay called the Federalist Papers, although they were not as widely read as numerous independent local speeches and articles. The arguments against ratification appeared in various forms, by various authors, most of whom used a pseudonym. Collectively, these writings have become known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.

America has changed alot.
I think time has to be taken into consideration. When the constitution was written the world moved in slow motion. Another thing is huge government bureaucracies did not exist then. Third because of welfare programs people only vote to line their pockets with tax money stolen from fellow citizens. And we have a powerful peace movement which is supported by these welfare people because they vote for the same party. Even if war was 100% necessary I don't think the Democratic Party has the nerve to go against the Peace People.

Switch from Huckabee to Ron Paul?
--
It certainly *sounds* as if Mr. Norris is now channeling Dr. Paul instead of Mr. Huckabee.


Beyond that, he brings up the First Barbary War, saying:

"...Thomas Jefferson...confessed and appealed to Congress in 1801 that he was 'unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense' when he sent a small regiment of warships to the Mediterranean to ward off attacks by the Barbary States."


The term is actually "fleet," and while it began with the Mediterranean Squadron under Commodore Richard Dale, under Commodore Edward Preble (who took command in 1803 to begin the operations that would bring the war to its conclusion) it consisted of pretty much the full striking power of the U.S. Navy, including the big 44-gun Humphreys-designed frigates that were the "pocket battleships" of their era.

But there *was* a declaration of war in that conflict, uttered by the enemy.

By chopping down the flagstaff at the U.S. Consulate in his country, Yussif Karamanli (the Bashaw of Tripoli) declared war in May 1801.

That's how it was done, then and there.

It doesn't take more than one side to declare that a state of war exists, any more than it's required that the victim of violent sexual assault must scream "Rape!" for the attack to be called criminal.

--

This has already been agreed to
Tony writes: 6:35 PM EST
Technological Change?
Perhaps Sensei Norris has forgotten that modern technology effects the situation massively, at least in some circumstances.

For example, the Commander In Chief could hardly wait for Nancy Pelosi to call for an emergency war session with ballistic missiles on the way to a first strike somewhere in the US heartland.

----------
Its already been discussed and agreed to by all the President is to defend the nation, without any debates over that.

So this point is moot to the subject of the thread

Why change the constitution?
The only people that want it changed are the people that want to take away the freedom of the American people...so why change it?


Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem
How about you research jet fuel before you say it doesn't melt anything. I don't know about you, but does your stove burn at 980C? thats 1796F in case your wondering....now would that melt steel? you bet it would! quit feeding at the trough of the liberal media.

so...lets review shall we?

Jet fuel burns at about 1000C
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C. so it was at less than half strength, probably considerably less since it was another 350C hotter.

So now, with many steel beams taken out by the plane itself and the remainder at less than half strength, would it collapse? please do your research before you look like an moron in a public forum

mocus..
Jury nullification is what you are speaking of and is fundamental in our system of checks and balances. However, judges have been consistently not allowing people to instruct juries on this power the people have. The consistently stop the lawyers and defendants from informing the jury that they have this power. There are several websites dedicated to this principle. It is one of those rights that the people have forgotten.

Free in PA
I like the way you think. Right now Im in college, but as soon as I have enough extra cash I am getting myself a gun. Ill probably become a member of the NRA before long after that. We need more Americans like you!

Has the US Run Amuck Constitutionally?
With all due respect to Mr. Norris, that's probably not the right question to ask. Ever since the Articles of Confederation were tossed out in favor of the Constitution (drawn up in secret with a minimum of delegates present to start) there have been fights over power sharing. Political parties began soon after ratification; indeed, "The Federalist Papers" were factional documents to encourage ratification. There's nothing wrong with having opinions on how government should be run; it's just when it goes against the Constitution we start having problems. Jefferson worried about the Louisiana Purchase because there was nothing specifically in the Constitution about the Executive branch having the authority to do purchase land.
I think it is disingenuous for any President to ask for an authorization to go to war and act as if it's a blank check and go whenever they feel like it; we went through that nutroll during Viet Nam and ended up with the War Powers Act. Narrow-minded politicians on both sides of the aisle are running "amuk", not the people.

Individual Jurors Could Fix Things
People in this country have failed over the years to use their jury power to get rid of bad laws that enable unconstitutional acts by the government. That's why we now have a climate in which government freely passes laws that herd people into pens like cattle going to the slaughter. A single juror could cause a hung jury for someone accused of violating one of these laws. If enough people simply voted "not guilty" for those accused of violating these bad laws, they would be repealed, and the government would then lose its ability to run amok, in the constitutional sense. We have the mess we have now because of the citizenry defaulting on one of its fundamental rights - The right to say to the government, "No, you can't do that to this person for doing that!"

Congress should do what it is paid to do
“I don't believe our Founders could have imagined the type of global terrorism we wage war against today.” I do not think or Founders had any Idea that we would be sticking our nose into everyone else’s business the way we do now. I also think our huge egos are writing checks we can no longer cash as a country. This is a very good article and it is true and it points out that the President has control of the Military and that is all; he is the go between for the Congress as this civilian body controls the military through the President. The administration we have had for the last almost 8 years is the reason I said “writing checks we can no longer cash as a country.” Other peoples and their countries are starting to look at us as the terrorist and you cannot blame them; and the reason is, “if we fight them on their own soil we will not have to fight them on ours!” What we are doing as a country at this point and time is just plain wrong and Congress should take away the money and take back the controls.
One other thing our Congress should enforce and stop playing with is simply this; “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is time illegal aliens go home as they have no rights here! If they do not go, lock them up and throw away the key!

Technological Change?
Perhaps Sensei Norris has forgotten that modern technology effects the situation massively, at least in some circumstances.

For example, the Commander In Chief could hardly wait for Nancy Pelosi to call for an emergency war session with ballistic missiles on the way to a first strike somewhere in the US heartland.

Likewise a defensive use of an ABM system defending a close ally (Japan, Israel, etc.) is considered an act of war, yet again missile flight times from Iran, China, and/or North Korea make requiring the Legislative process described by the Founders quite unworkable.

Historically, naval captains and commanders far in the field have had discretion to act, based upon their experience, training, and on-the-scene intelligence. Surely the President has the same discretion when the situation calls for more immediate reactions?

This, in turn, may lead to what could be the option/authority of the President to lay down a "first strike" on such non-governmental combatants as terrorist groups. Does the President truly need a separate consent of the Legislature each and every time an armed Predator has a chance to "take out" a mortar team or group of Islamists planting IED's along the roads of Afghanistan?

Whether it is a traditional declaration of war (FDR's request to the Congress) or action through the War Powers Act or some other Congressional action (Remember, Legislatures are highly skilled in passing the "buck" when it comes to important decisions), the Commander in Chief can hardly function with such a limited construction of the Founding Contract.

Perhaps all citizens could work towards the kind of debate and constitutional changes that would make sure that the Founding Contract is, as Tom Clancy put it, "...not a suicide pact..." while at the same time maintains the proper safeguards.


CKHustler..
I have read GunnyGs posts and just thoroughly enjoy the way he blasts the socialists (I refuse to call them liberals and insult the Founders, who truly were liberal). I will take your advice and check out his blog the next time I get a chance, as he appears to be a believer in individual sovereignty, freedom and a true patriot. I believe the “table is being set”, so to speak, by a greater number of people in this country than many may realize. A recommendation I have for people to do with their “government bribery check” otherwise known as the “stimulus payment” is to buy more firearms, ammunition, medical supplies, non-perishable food supplies (MRE,s) etc.. Rather than spend the money at China Mart, spend it on one of your God given rights (natural rights if you prefer). A spike in firearms sales may just grab the attention of the powers that be.

Redlac..
Excellent post!!! The only thing I disagree with is your statement; “In the end, the constitution is not those 11 pages, the constitution has become the thousands of pages written since by the judiciary.” I believe that in the end the people will arise and restore the Country to what the Founders intended; a Constitutional Republic in which the federal gov. abides by its powers and restrictions as enumerated in the Constitution. More and more people are becoming aware of the fact that the gov. declared “war” on its citizen’s decades ago with all their unconstitutional bureaucracies, laws and regulations. They have blatantly violated the 1st amend. with their “free speech zones” and McCain/ Feingold, the 4th no longer exists for all intents and purposes, over 20,000 infringements on the 2nd amend.(what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ is that hard to understand), they completely ignore the 10th amend. as they blackmail the states for compliance. We see them prepare for a “shooting war” with the militarization of the police (the standing army the founders warned us of) and practice urban warfare with “dynamic entry” and “no knock warrants”. No, I believe in the end the people will see that war has been declared on them and they will fight to restore those 11 pages of the Constitution.

Not an engineer...
2nd tower hit collaped before the 1st tower hit. Why? Because the plane entered it at a lower story & therefore the weakened structure gave way with more weight from more stories above to hold.

Do you think that the structured steel is the only material holding weight? What about all of the other materials that go into walls and floors?

Seems pretty clear to me that the buildings collapsed as a result of the plane crashes vs. anything conspiricy-related.

Peace,

YK

45caliber
The type of collapse you describe is called "pancaking". In fact the FEMA report on the collapses also claims that is how the towers came down. However the NIST and Underwriters Laboratory investigations (as well as every independant investigation) specifically rule out the "pancake" theory as a possible cause. It is important to note that the NIST's report only covers the events that lead up to the collapse, not the collapses themselves. UL's report states the reason for the total collapse is inconclusive.

You wrote: "The first couple of floors had the columns weaked badly, almost to the point of melting, before they failed." How? Of the known materials involved nothing burned at a high enough temperature to "weaken" much less melt structural steel. Again the basic observation that your stove does not melt when you cook on it disqualifies that theory. Think about how hard it is to melt steel. Without a chemical that burns at extreme temperatures, a blast furnace, the use of highly flammable gasses mixed with pure oxygen or a high amperage electrical current, melting steel is almost not possible. I do thank you for trying to explain things though.

What constitution?
I hate to tell you, Chuck, but the US began running amuck constitutionally not long after Jefferson and Adams died. And, it's been downhill ever since. Granted, we still debate the war powers at times - not that any President has ever been impeached, but what about the rest? Would you care to find the justification in the constitution that enables the Federal Government to tax income? And what about the "welfare" clause whereby the Federal Government usurped the role of the states in health, education, and welfare? Indeed, perhaps you should examine precisely how the country started with a Republic, and ended up with a centralized direct democracy? What happened to the powers of the states? How is it that administrative bureaucracy's routinely over-ride states and their laws - as the EPA did recently when it rejected the rights of the states to set their own clean air laws. One example among hundreds? How is it that the federal government can pass laws which they refuse to fund - and then force the states to use state tax dollars to fund them? Where does the consitution enable the Federal government to enforce police powers within the states? This isn't a debate, indeed, the debate for all practical purposes ended on the day that Picketts brave lads failed to make it up that hill. In the end, the constitution is not those 11 pages, the constitution has become the thousands of pages written since by the judiciary. Every step of which "redefined it" according to the opinions at that time, and which now, can never be rewritten. The great delusion of so many is that appointing conservative justices will somehow restore the constitution. The only difference the public will see is that those justices will refuse - in almost all cases - to change prior decided law - better known as precedents. But we're still stuck with the same law - none of which has much to do with those first 11 pages.

Constitutional, or not?
The world's democracies and republics did not engage in nation re-building after WWI, and the result was some dude named Adolph, and who knows how many dead.

After WWII, world powers engaged in nation re-building, to say nothing of protection, in Japan and Germany, and look at them now. Likewise South Korea, we are still there over 50 years later to protect them, look at them and then look north of the 38th.

Fast forward to Viet Nam. We left those poor slobs to their own devices, and look at the country now.

Nowhere have I ever read about Constitutional authorization for what we did after WWII, or Korea, it simply wasn't needed. What I have seen is that both houses of Congress gave their blessing to going into Iraq, and continue to fund the operation. After we deposed Sodamnedinsane, to have left the people to the extremists would have made the Holocaust look like a Sunday School Picnic.

If we arbitrarily pulled out now, it would be one of the biggest betrayals of history, and there have been some pretty bad ones.

There is only one real way to get out of Iraq, and that is to WIN!!!!!!
And we're doing that now.

The Old Coot

Free in PA
I hear ya, oh do I hear ya. Been preaching that around here for a couple months now. You should check out GunnyG's blog on here. He probably gets the most traffic of the bloggers here on TH. I believe in the next 4 years, if Obama is president and the dems get a filibuster proof congress, we may see that awakening. What we need are for the people that are already awakened to set the table for when the masses do. So when it does, it overtakes the entire country and not a small minority.

Force = Mass x Acceleration
The above is a simple equation known to many scientists. When the Trade Center buildings collapsed, they had massive mass (ten stories worth of it) dropping at 32 feet per second squared. There isn't much that can be built that can withstand that force. While the columns are designed to hold up the weight of the floors, they are not designed to have that same weight drop onto them. The first couple of floors had the columns weaked badly, almost to the point of melting, before they failed. By the time the weight hit the still solid columns the force was far higher. About the only thing that might have resisted was for all the lower floors to be made of solid steel - with no rooms or anything else for people.

Why do you think the terrorists used that method (ramming with planes) to destroy the buildings? The equation is so simple, they could work it too.

CKHustler.......
The foresight of the Founders has always amazed and inspired me. I stopped by your blog; the quotes you chose to use do indeed apply to what is happening in our country today. We the People need to arise from our slumber before it is too late. The powers that be seek to destroy our Republic and unless the citizens stop being complacent and acquiescing to their unjust and unconstitutional “laws” and regulations, they will succeed. I hope and pray everyday that the “sleeping giant” will awaken and take back our Constitutional Republic from those bent on its destruction. It seems a large body of the people are like the proverbial frog in a pot of water; going about their existence while the government slowly turns up the flame. They don’t feel the “heat” of this little unconstitutional law or that little infringement of their freedoms because they think it doesn’t affect them and all the while the flame of government tyranny gets higher and hotter. As Justice William O. Douglas said;

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air-however slight-lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness.”

Nightfall is almost upon us, the water is near the boiling point, will the people wake up and throw off the yoke of oppression, or will they meekly submit and hold out their arms to be fitted for their shackles?

Jim
So your saying the laws of physics were suspended during the collapses? Not sure how that occured. Care to explain? Please? While your at it can you also explain how it is possible that even though propane and natural gas burn at much higher temperatures than kerosene (jet fuel) your steel, copper, iron and aluminum stoves, pots and pans do not melt or even "weaken"? But the heat from a kerosene fire was enough to "weaken" 18 huge fire proofed structural steel columns to the point of total collapse? I breathlessly wait for your explanation (with some kind of data to confirm it of course). Few things would make me happier than for someone to scientifically explain how these things occured when the laws of physics and thermodynamics simply won't allow it when you consider the materials involved.

Nemesys -- Reply #7
"The Constitution is very simply written - and it's 11 pages long."

Didja ever notice how short the original 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights are?

And the more recent the Amendment is, the more words are in it?

to CK
Actually, CK, it seems like the libs are for anything that runs against the grain of the right...at any expense, no matter what the logic. (If there is such a thing in the liberal mindset.)

Doesn't matter. "It's Bush's fault", remember?

Woody from Iowa

Free in PA
Want some more founding father words? Check out my blog, its amazing how they basically predicted this exact thing happening.

The federalist papers are also a great read for anyone wanting to engage in a debate such as this. Clearly SteveL and his ilk haven't read them.

SteveL
Your accusations are so unbelievably stupid, I will not respond...Fighting Sadrists not constitutional? please


The war was authed by congress, Bush went in. End up story. I don't recall reading about any complaining about rebuilding WW2 nations and calling that unconstitutional. Had we not the world would be much worse off...aren't you libs for globalization?

An important clarification
Chuck Norris: "That is why so many strict constitutionalists have labeled our battles in Iraq as unconstitutional. Many accuse our president of not only going to war without a congressional declaration"

We DID get a congressional authorization of military force for the war to depose Saddam and disarm his military forces.

What we did NOT get, was congressional authorization of the postwar nation-building exercise (which, unfortunately, includes needed counterinsurgency operations). We sort of just wandered into it without a debate.

A question for conservatives
Suppose Obama wins the election.

And then suppose that President Obama withdraws our troops from Iraq, and instead begins a nation-building exercise in Darfur instead.

With our troops potentially in harm's way in Darfur, will you give President Obama the same unequivocal support that you gave Bush?

Or will you fight his Darfur operation every step of the way?

for Mr. Wright
Mr. Wright writes: "Now that the Iraqi war is over, the new focus is Nation building....I as a Soldier, believe that this is extremely important"

If it's that important, it should have been authorized by Congress by a resolution that spells out EXACTLY what the goals are for OUR troops. (Not Bush's handwaving about "building democracy"--only the Iraqis can build a democracy. What is America's responsibility while they're doing that, specifically?)

For example, right now, our troops are engaged in combat against Sadrists. When did the American people and Congress ever agree to that? When did we ever have a debate about the wisest course of action to accomplish that?

The original war resolution, passed by Congress in October 2002, didn't mention anything about postwar peacekeeping forces or occupation operations. If we had known what a mess we were getting into, Congress could have attached a rider to the war resolution stating that postwar occupation operations and peacekeeping operations in Iraq MUST be separately authorized by Congress, or else they would automatically sunset.


New Parody on Politicians
my blog. enjoy

The Founders words hold the answers..
"Talking about the violations against the Constitution is fine, but what can be done to stop them?"

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28)

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William S. Smith, 1787

Till We the People hold them accountable, they will continue on the path towards tyranny.

Good article
Talking about the violations against the Constitution is fine, but what can be done to stop them?

Ron Paul...a week before Oct. 11, 2002
To House of Reps (Oct 3, 2002):

"Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.

"Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution."

CHUCK is correct! Great article Mr. Norris!

LON and LUIGI....more...
"It is time to set the record straight. The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq." http://www.albionmonitor.com/0402a/iraqwarunconstitutional .html

Ron Paul's diatribe about the issue...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

LON and LUIGI
Did Congress authorize war into Iraq or before to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan? And we merely jumped over to Iraq?? Just wondering.

Citations
"Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)
FACT BOX
• "The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

• The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

• The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133"

Lets calls a duck an alligator
And teach our children that ducks are actually alligators and not ducks.

Anytime the US Military is used in combat, that is the definition of a war.

Its sole mission is to fight wars.
Trained and paid to fight in defense of America.
Its is NOT a POLICE FORCE.

If some man wants to use the US Military to fight some war, then War should have to be DECLARED BY CONGRESS.

For the sake of the UNITY of the nation if nothing else.
When Truman was allowed to send the US Military to Korea, he called it a Police Action and not War to avoid and DIVIDE so he could go ahead and incorporate his personal power to decide when the US Military could be used, and NOT Congress.

If Korea had been a Police Action, why in the he** did he send sent the POLICE?

The best reason to stick to protocol
And hold the Government accountable to the letter of the law, as stated in the US Constitution and Chuck has pointed out:

-- "The Congress shall have Power … To declare War." (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution)

Is for the sake of UNITY.

This being by-passed opens the door for divisions, as we now see that divide the nation.

Perfect for the enemies of America to divide and conquer.

In 1973 the US Congress passed a new law just so they could create division of the people, to incorporate government power.

They called it the War Powers Act.
Its only good for the Lawyers to use to create the confusion and division that is a constant voice from Washington DC.

The only thing that UNITES the US Federal Government today, is any issue over SPENDING MONEY.
Thats it.

Through our own governments policies blocking every avenue to be energy independent, they have made us all servants to tyrants and religious fanatics all across the world.

We all know the problem is government cause its dead set to abuse the power given them by the people, and to keep doing it, they had to divide us all up and DESTROY THE UNITY THE US CONSTITUTION spells out in clear language for its preservation of UNITY.

jeepers....
All this talk of the Constitution. If only we had some candidate that spent his entire congressional career voting based on the constitution. Too bad none of the candidates believe in the words of the founders. I'm sure if one did, and he was from District 14 of Texas, conservative republicans would rally around him.

If we are to adhere
to the Constitution, then all of the entitlement programs and probably 1/4 of the budget would immediately get the axe. And the problem is???

Luigi is correct in that the Congress DID authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Good column, Chuck. We need more roundhouse kicks to our bloated anti-Constitutional gummint.

Our Constitution
There is only one way we are going to restore Constitutional government to this nation, and that is to elect an independent President! Only an independent can break the hold on power by the two major parties by disrupting the very power structure of Washington.

The two parties have accomplished the amazing feat of duping the American people into believing that they are the only ones who can govern, that only they have the necessary wisdom, knowledge and experience. This is the big lie promoted over and over by the DEM/GOP/MSM propaganda machines to assure the elites perpetual power. A lie told over and over until accepted as true is an old tactic, and it is working.

Unless and until "we the people" reject this myth and show some faith and courage to do what we have been taught not to do, vote independent, we will only see more of the same.

If you care about the future of our beloved nation and what we are passing on to our kids, you need to visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. Not only will you find my ideas on the issues, but you will find out about 20 other independent candidates you can vote for. The time for action has come and we must move now to stop the elites from destroying this nation in their partisan battle for power, wealth, and fame.

Check out the site. After all, the elites have already stolen our inheritance. Is anyone willing to do something to reclaim it? Anyone? Thanks, Joe

daring but seemingly wrong
Norris deserves credit for a topic that does not seem like it will be popular among his conservative audience. And as someone who has opposed the war from the outside I am certainly not averse to arguments that the war was unconstitutional. but the case above is not convincing.

As Luigi notes, there was Congressional authorization if not a flat declaration of war. And none of Norris' quotes deal with the continuation or ending of a war.

The Bush Administration has made other unconstitutional claims of power, like the right to torture regardless of what laws Congress passes. But the war itself, while woefully misguided, does not seem to have been unconstitutional.

Constitutionality of Iraq War?
I'll be the first to decry usurpations of Constitutional authority by one branch over another, but have you forgotten that both houses of Congress indeed approved our excursion into Iraq?
Do you recall that on every occasion when President Bush needed funding to continue the War in Iraq, he has been given it by the US Congress?
Given these two facts, how do you conclude that Congress's constitutional right/obligation to declare war has been abrogated.
And this is no different from the Korean and Vietnam Wars, where Congress gave both tacit and actual approval to those wars.
There's nothing in the Constitution that dictates the form Congress must take to make a declaration of war.
Leo in Chicago

More of the same to come
As long as we allow the two major parties to control the election system, the debates, and the country, we will continue to suffer under their misrule.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: Why on earth do we allow the people running for office to set the rules by which they run for office? Why do we allow them to create situations that then require that they change the rules in midstream and then use that as a justification for further tweaking of the results when they don't like how elections turn out? If you left it to the players in the World Series to decide what constitutes a strike after each pitch is in the catcher's glove, the game would never end. This is how it works in DC today, and in far too many state capitols as well. They have gone so far beyond the authority they were granted that it's now impossible to rein them in from within their custom-built system.

The best we can do is to turn out every incumbent in office who is up for election. That won't solve the problems, but it will certainly get their attention.

How it IS
From a column by Paul Criag Roberts at VDARE.com "The country is lost, because the brownshirt Bush Regime has destroyed the US Constitution with the complicity of the opposition party and the federal courts. There is no organized power that can restore the Constitution or even much concern that it has been overthrown.

The country is broken, because American capitalists have moved offshore so many US manufacturing, engineering, and research jobs that US imports now exceed US industrial production. American dependency on imported manufactured goods, advanced technology goods, and energy is astounding.

Moreover, the dependency is escalating dramatically. In March 2002, prior to Bush’s decision to impose Israel’s will on the Middle East, oil was $25 a barrel. Today oil is $125 a barrel, a five-fold increase that has seen our oil import bill rise from $145 billion in 2006 to $456 billion presently, a $300 billion addition to a trade deficit that was already running $700-$800 billion annually.

There is no possibility of the US closing its trade deficit. The US is able to survive such enormous deficits only because the US dollar is the world reserve currency. This role for the dollar is nearing an end as the world looks for more stable stores of value. Although oil is still nominally priced in dollars, in reality it is being priced in euros as oil producers raise the dollar price with a view to keeping their oil revenues at a constant purchasing power in euros.

When the dollar loses its reserve currency role, foreign financing for US trade and budget deficits will evaporate. US living standards will collapse, and the indispensable omnipower will be just another washed up country.

For a world weary of "American exceptionalism," this can’t happen too soon."

Congressional power
Chuck, I agree with your assessment of the situation. But, this does not lie at the feet of the President (Reagan, bush, Clinton, or Bush) This has been a delibrate deraliction of duty by congress. Congress creates agencies that in essence pass rules and regulations (Laws) so they don't have to bite the bullet and stand for something (ie FDA, FCC, DEA, etc, etc.) Congress has been giving it's power over to the court and the President for years.

Mr. Norris; your topic is too broad~
For one thing, the President has the power as the Commander and Chief to send the Military anywhere he feels they need to be. Part of the checks and balances falls to Congress to either accept the President's decisions and provide funding or not accept it and force a removal. Must I remind some of you that Congress had whole heartedly (to include Sen. Clinton) supported the push for War with Iraq?

Now that the Iraqi war is over, the new focus is Nation building. Whether or not we SHOULD be involved with this is debatable; however, I as a Soldier, believe that this is extremely important; not just for the sake of Iraq, but for the entire Middle East (and thus our own security). The Islamic Terrorists understand the importance of this. That is why they have declared that they will not stop until they have acheived victory in Iraq (the U.S. leaving).
Of course, then you have to look at the Courts. The Judges of whom are not elected to their positions should never have the power to decide or make laws but rather to interpret the laws already in place; and in the case of the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitutionality of it. Roe V Wade was never a law that Congress made so should never have been accepted as a law.
There is also the problem of Governments removing citizens from their properties, not for any vital necessity from the Gov. but for a private company to build a business. This is just as much of a miscarriage of justice as anything else. There is also the problem with our Boarders and our Gov's decision to ignore it so completely. I have not covered all the points that would fall under Mr. Norris's title. However, one could practically write a short novel on this subject.

It's OK to be Suspicious
We certainly did have a good president who was a former actor, but we have to be careful about the Hollywood types. While we can appreciate their talent and all the hard work they did to become accomplished in their fields, a lot moral depravity is being promoted by individuals in the movie industry. When an actor says something that we like, is he for real or just putting on an act, having an ulterrior motive for winning over conservatives?

Serious question here - I really don't know the answer here. Has Chuck Norris ever addressed Hollywood's moral issues before? Would he dare to?

You have become
one of the better contributors to TH, Chuck. You are one smart fellow, as opposed to that Dios character above.

Thank you Chuck
At last someone who has read a bit of history. If we have lost our constitutional checks and balances, then we have lost our way. It is time to examine how our government is working, or not working and get together and correct it.
Plain and simple. The enemy is within it would seem.

Norris' MUCH STRONGER ending at WND
Norris' exclusive column at World Net Daily ends even with a MUCH STRONGER ending. WOW! Check it out at... http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64016

EXCELLENT column Chuck! Keep it up!

We can't end the war
News for Norris and others who advance the theory that America can end the war just by leaving.

It didn't end when the Japanese troops left, it didn't end when the French troops left, it won't end when the English leave. and it won't end for the Iraqs' after we leave.

If you want to end it, we have to stay. If you want to leave the mess for others... Leave

Former Rep....
Whats so difficult....
A plane filled with jet fuel smashes into the floor of a highrise 10+ stories from the top. The resulting fire burns at 1000 - 1500 degrees for 30+/- minutes weaking the steel support system beyond its capacity to hold up 10+ stories of building. Upon failure. 10+ stories of building is dropped on the remaining building below.

I've got news for you. If you drop 10+ stories of a building on another building.... it's coming down.

The fact that it happened twice just proves I'm right.

Dios
I am sick to death of hearing people like you telling Chuck Norris to shut up just because he is an actor.

If a former actor can be one of the best Presidents the U.S. has ever had, and a body builder can be governor of California, I certainly think that qualifies Chuck to give an opinion. How many times have YOU been to Iraq to encourage the troops? Oh, we don't even know WHAT IT IS you do for a living. For all we know, you could be a high school drop out.

If anyone needs to shut up here, it's you.

It's happening
It used to be, even last Thanksgiving, that my brother, step-father and myself could not discuss politics and come to any real agreement. My mom even forbid us to bring it up in her presence due to how heated the discussion always became. Things have certainly changed in the last 6 months. We had a three-way conference call the other day and we have all come to the same conclusion. There are no Democrats or Republicans in Washington D.C. any more. There is only one political party and it is working very hard to keep the men behind the curtain and their agenda from being noticed.

I'm still waiting for someone, ANYONE, to explain how 2 110 story buildings collapsed in just over 10 seconds. Someone please explain to me how none of the floors in either tower offered ANY resistance to the collapse. I have come up with only 1 possible explanation and it has to be wrong. I don't even want to think about building 7.

Stick to the movies, will ya?
Mr. Norris unknowingly has proven that Bush is waging an illegal war. It's up to CONGRESS, not the president, to formally declare war. Please, Mr. Norris, go back to the movies. You are way over your head here.

Constitution?
We don't need no stinkin' constitution.

It's either that or we need to face facts and admit, the people who are in office on both sides of the aisle have got to go.

Perhaps we should
stop re-electing thieves, liars, and corrupt incompetents? Oh, I forgot: we have to, or the "even worse" party might win.

Mr. Norris: the correct question would be, "WHEN DID the US run amok constitutionally?"

On Declaring War --
-- I'm no more a Constitutional scholar than Norris is --

But I have heard it said that, by virtue of repeatedly voting to provide funding for the war in Iraq, Congress has "de facto" declared war.

Any time they really want the war to end, all they have to do is vote against paying for it.

Of course, this isn't going to happen, due to many of the problems Norris alludes to. In particular, everyone in Congress is now attaching all sorts of pork bills to the military funding, often for stuff that has utterly no military application whatsoever.

They do this because it helps "hide" it, and lets them slip under spending restrictions they voted for earlier.

I'm willing to bet that even if a Democrat wins in 2008, no matter how much he/she/it might have been against the war in their campaign, once in office they'll continue it ad nauseum. Otherwise, they'll have to think up some other way to hide their horribly wasteful spending from us.

Well,
I can't fault the above. It is completely accurate. I don't know where this will end, one reason I don't think the Patriot Act or creating the super agency of Homeland Security was a good idea. We could have just used the laws we already had and forced the alphabet soup agencies to work together.

The War on Terror or whatever name applies is a horse of a different color. They have been at war against us for decades. They have killed our people with no price extracted from them. Is it any wonder 9/11 happened ?

Either we engage or we suffer the consequences of not engaging. We can decline to declare war and still be attacked, or we can kill the bastards. Not seeing a lot of middle ground here.

If our ploiticians would rather pander for votes than protect their citizens, then I have to support a president who will engage the enemy and worry about the contitutional issues later.

We can fix the breaches to the constitution after we win the war. If we loose, there is no constitution.

Ok, I want them held accountable
The problem is they have the country so divided into political factions, how do we all join together to hold them accountable?
The Justice Department will not do it, except for political expediency, like Scooter Libby

Elections cannot do it, its the people who have the money who run, and get good press if they are a democrat, even some for the GOP, who are now like the democrats, and that is all the info most get.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.