Geopolitics and the Constitution

To what degree does the Constitution limit us in what some would call "playing geopolitics", but would I would argue is dealing with the realities in a complex world filled with challenges and threats to our well-being? There are many here, I would think, who might argue that the Founders' concern against standing armies and/or entangling alliances should limit our involvement around the world.

IMO, the Constitution does no such thing. It merely limits the budgeting for the military (no more than two years as I recall), and sets the institutional checks on command. It says nothing about strategy or how we should deal with the world around us.

We are faced with new and shifting challenges around the world. Obviously, jihadists are our most pressing concern. Their position and threat, though, is buttressed by a set of alliances, however loose, with rogue states. Those rogue states' themselves have different relationships with European states, Europe as a political entity, and with China. Europe itself increasingly sees its position as a counter-weight to our own strength and unilateral capabilities and interests and seeks its own relationships with others such as Russia and China. China's economic and military position grows stronger. Does the Constitution limit us in dealing with these players? Should the Founders' perception of our best interest govern us separately from the Constitution to the extent the two differ?

 

poncho,

What were the founders past experiences with the same pressures and threats?

Excellent question. One response was Jefferson's "unilateral" response to the Barbary pirates by going over there and kicking their butts (if I have my history correct) rather than the European appeasement policy (speaking of not being able to get away from habit!) of paying tribute.

Other differences are that our economic reach is global, and therefore our legitimate interests are too. And to the extent that other nations are allied with us (and yes, share our values), we should work with those nations and ally with them. Of course, such alliances and interests aren't completely parallel, as they are separate nations, such as India's position relative to China, and Israel's geographic position of being surrounded by enemies. Our reliance on global markets and sources further requires our global presence and actions.


Read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Indepedence a few times then go through the list of injuries and usurpations substitute the word "my government" for the word "He. Then think about each of those things they considered to be an injury and compare it to the government we have now.

With all due, and abiding, respect, I believe it is a separate issue, though certainly an interesting question.

[ September 24, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

Thanks poncho and Ken. You two (and Joe B.) had a lot to do with inspiring this thread. Poncho, I know you and I differ on the neo-cons, and I think Ken, Joe, and I pretty much agree, but I think one thing we all share is a deep reverence for the Constitution, and the Founders (Madison is my favorite). Believe it or not, I mostly agree with the first quote from Madison. It disturbs me to see Congress delegating its power and responsibility to the President. However, I also agree with the Iraq war. Perhaps this is one area where I may not hold to as high a standard in sticking with the Constitution (which bothers me) because I believe the President is the voice of America foreign policy and must be able to respond to threats to our security. It sickens me but a perfect example of the need for that is Congress's carping after we had been deliberately and savagely attacked on September 11. They had the power and duty to declare war on al Quaeda or international terror but waited on the President to act.

I would also add that I don't want to turn this into a debate on declaring war, or the war in Iraq but hope to broaden it to the conduct of foreign policy in general.

Madison also speaks truth in the second quote but it also smacks somewhat of a Pollyannish view in that he seems to ignore that war is sometimes thrust upon us. In the modern era it is thrust upon us as being the lone superpower with the capability to respond to threats to our interests.

Parenthetically, am reading a very interesting book by Robert Kagan Of Paradise and Power, with a subtitle about America and Europe in the New World Order. I know that phrase alarms some, but Kagan does not speak as favorably disposed to European union, but is rather commenting on European weakness as a motivator in their distancing themselves from the United States. It's a very small but very interesting book.

Looking forward to further comments. Others I didn't name are more than welcome to join in also.

 

C4K,

We can get a glimpse of the time , however, by looking at President Washington's Farewell address.

That is exactly my point: are we governed in any way, except by example, by President's Washington's advice? His opinion that particular agreements of the time are unnecessary, in fact, leaves it open for us to gauge the utility of particular agreements.

The United States must "act for ourselves and not for others."

Don't "the others" include George Washington when it comes to deciding international priorities and how to deal with foreign powers? No, I don't subscribe to thinking of our Founders as "the dead hand of the past"; nor do I agree with Jefferson's "the earth is for the living". I think that due and VERY high deference is to paid them when it comes to their thoughts on the meaning of the Constitution. I take second place to no one in my awe and regard for the Founding Fathers. We should also not ignore what Washington taught us about foreign policy (I wish students were still required to read his Farewell Address--and much more, including the Federalist Papers), but today's world presents unique challenges and I don't believe that we are necessarily bound in our dealing with those challenges by either the Constitution or our Founders.

 

Agreed.

Not to take us afield, but just curious, as this was touched on in another thread: Would we also do well to remember Washington's injunction:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

 

C4K,

Thanks for catching that. I phrased that terribly. By the Constitution, I meant more of what I meant earlier in the thread, that the Constitution says nothing about how that policy is to be conducted, except insofar as there are limits set in the separation of powers. I guess I should have said we are not bound by it because it doesn't speak to foreign policy. I very much share your strict constructionism, I just don't think there is anything in the Constitution that applies, except as noted.

 

Whew! I thought the only thing we would agree on is that Huntsville is a great place to live!

 

But, seriously, I think that one important thing we share is a commitment to a strict construction of the Constitution. I can much better debate someone who believes that than someone who holds to the slippery notion that the Constitution is a "living" document, whose meaning changes with the times. Actually, there is something wonderful in debating someone who shares that respect for the Constitution because both sides are seeking what the Constitution means.