Impeach Bush If He Attacks Iran

Bill Haymin
By John W. Whitehead

www.rutherford.org

"The Congress shall have Power to…declare War…"

Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution

We have a president who does just about whatever he wants, the Constitution be damned. He has, among other things, asserted unchecked unilateral power, conducted surveillance on American citizens in violation of federal law and ignored universal prohibitions on torture. And although years from now historians may refer to the "Bush Doctrine" in much the same way that they talk about the Monroe or Truman Doctrines, they will most likely not hold it in the same esteem.

President James Monroe, faced with the possible threat of Europe colonizing countries in the western hemisphere, declared the U.S. the protector of independent nations in the Americas. Following the end of World War Two, President Harry S. Truman issued a policy of foreign aid intended to challenge Soviet ambitions throughout the world.

However, unlike the attempts of Bush´s predecessors to serve American interests by defending or aiding foreign interests, Bush´s so-called "preemptive military action" doctrine employs the very opposite strategy. It suggests that whatever foreign nation does not stand with the U.S. must, by default, stand against us.

The critical corollary to this doctrine insists that Bush, acting in preemptive self-defense of his country, has a right to use force—that is, declare war—on a potentially aggressive foreign nation. For the present time, Iran seems to fit the bill. In fact, war with Iran may be imminent. As security analyst Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, recently wrote:

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants.

But does President Bush have the authority to unilaterally declare war against a foreign nation without the approval of Congress? Not according to our founding fathers.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution, distrustful of the British king´s power to declare war and raise fleets and armies, intended to ensure that Congress alone should have the power to initiate military action against other nations, while at the same time making the president commander-in-chief. As James Madison opined, "Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded." Thus Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress—not the president—the power to declare war. However, the Constitution does grant the president the authority to act without the approval of Congress, but only when it is in self-defense.

Attempts have been made over time to weaken or redefine the Constitution´s definitive statement of who can and cannot make a declaration of war. For example, in 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which gives a president the authority to wage war abroad for 60 days without congressional approval. It is questionable whether this act, if challenged, would hold up to constitutional muster.

The Bush Doctrine of preemptive military action, at least as applied to Iran, is exactly the type of military action the framers intended to be the decision of Congress, not the president. Even the knowledge that Iran might be developing nuclear weapons at the present time (several other world powers share this distinction, including the U.S., China, India, Israel, Russia and the U.K.), there is no indication that Iran poses an immediate threat to the U.S., let alone a threat greater than that presented by any other rogue nation.

Yet apparently the Bush Administration has plans to conduct preemptive military action against Iran. This has raised serious concerns in Congress. As House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), in a letter to Bush on May 8, 2008, writes: "Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events. The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. ´Fox´ Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments."


Certainly, the framers never intended that a president, acting independent of Congress, have the power to wage war against another country merely on the basis of a potential threat. The framers did not believe in entrusting "a single man" with the decision to commit troops and finances to war, which would, in essence, be a dictatorship. The framers left the war-making decision to the "deliberative process in Congress." In this way, nothing but a clear national interest can draw us into war.

As the past has clearly shown, when we wage undeclared war—as we did in Vietnam and now in Iraq—we can be assured that the result will be immeasurable loss, regret and a nation divided. And for Bush to ignore the rule of law under which this nation operates is to ignore our Constitution.

The duty of the president of the United States of America is not to carry out his own objectives but to lead and serve the American people while upholding the Constitution. To act otherwise—especially in matters of war—is an impeachable offense under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. As Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) has said: "The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach him." And as Conyers wrote in his May 8th letter to Bush: "We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued."

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks) will be out in August 2008. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org

John W. Whitehead´s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact marketing@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

Post Office Box 7482

Charlottesville, VA

22906-7482

Phone: 434-978-3888

Fax: 434-978-1789

General Inquiries: staff@rutherford.org

Legal Assistance:

tristaff@rutherford.org

Technical Comments:

webmaster@rutherford.org

2008 The Rutherford Institute

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute´s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights and religious freedoms of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated.

Disclaimer: Posting articles does not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article. All articles that are posted are aimed at getting people to think & consider the various issues, ideas & factual research presented.

Reprinted by permission

Presented by Bill Haymin, 2008
Print Email
Bookmark and Share

Bill Haymin

"The counterfeit of this primal point is unfortunately prevalent today among the conservatives—the belief that self-government means man´s government of himself without regard for God or Christ, without regard for the Bible as the standard of political reference.

To understand where the power or sovereignty of government resides, is a leading point in understanding America´s Christian Constitution. Unless this point is accepted, the Constitution becomes like other constitutions, and government is treated as a force, an entity outside the individual, against which he must forever war or contend. This is essentially the European or Asian concept of government.

Where a people believe the power of government to reside determines whether they believe that man exists for the state or that the state exists for man. If it is believed that the power resides in the government, and a people dislikes what the government is doing, they resort to mob action such as we are seeing all over the world, and sadly to relate, in our own country as well. We are but reaping the harvest of false teaching and education concerning the history of our country and its form of government.

The Christian Roots of Our Constitution

By Verna M. Hall

http://www.principleapproach.org/resource/resmgr/docs/roots_of_constitution.pdf
Current News Comments:

The anti-capitalist liberals currently protesting on Wall Street are wasting their time. While they decry the supposed corruption of Wall Street, their "middle class" allies in Washington DC are raiding the US treasury like an unwatched cookie jar, padding the pockets of their friends and political cronies.

All this happens while Obama travels the country on the taxpayer´s dime, pushing a fake jobs bill that Senate Democrats won´t touch with a ten foot pole.

Liberals in America need to wake up to reality. The only real problem with Capitalism in America is government interference in free markets for the personal gain of politically connected crooks. The American Glob – Conservative Libertarian News and Views -

http://americanglob.com/2011/09/28/solyndra-redux-obama-gives-737-million-dollar-loan-to-solar-company-connected-to-nancy-pelosis-brother-in-law/

As Marti Oakley has just written, ["Smart Meters: No Federal Mandate." Aug. 15, 2011:http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/smart-meters-no-federal-mandate/#more-17629] the best way to look at what´s happening is to: "follow the money. In late October 2009, the [US] Department of Energy announced the $3.4 billion in stimulus grants under AARA. Award selections were announced for 100 smart grid projects that are intended to lead to the rollout of approximately 18-million smart meters, 1-million in-home energy management displays, and 170,000 smart thermostats, as well as numerous advanced transformers and load management devices."(5)

Smart-grid projects are supposed to "meet strict cyberspace guidelines"(6); but that has not happened, because greed trumped everything else: our health, safety, precaution, and any remnants of law. Government corruption is endemic, while Wall Street behind-the-scenes manipulation and the bankers theft of trillions of taxpayer dollars is ignored. White-collar crime is rarely prosecuted, because (1) there are few honest people left in government; and (2) those in charge are part of the bigger problem. All Precaution was thrown out in the race to compete for millions of fiat dollars. Without an informed and educated public and with the mass media compliant to elite and secret plans, no one is told the truth.

There has been no public discussion on the known biological hazards, both to humans and our pets, with these new meters. There has been no testing of these meters for any kind of safety. However, utilities Public Relations "spin" includes that: they will cut power costs to consumers, thus lowering your monthly bills; help customers reduce power consumption during peak times; and the meters can be read anytime, via a planned new "grid" in the works for the entire country that will use these meters. Utility companies insist these meters are safe.

As I've said in speaking engagements--both large and small--all over America, We have more to fear from Washington, D.C., than from Tehran or Baghdad, or from any other foreign entity. Chuck Baldwin

"The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." -- John Adams, 1772

"The function of the true state is to impose the minimum restrictions and safeguard the maximum liberties of the people, and it never regards the person as a thing."
-- Immanuel Kant, 1788

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission. Ann Rand

If the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be inevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extant practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Abraham Lincoln

There´s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren´t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws … pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law breakers. Ann Rand

I worry that we're past the point of recovering our Constitutional Republic. We're devolving deeper and deeper into an oligarchy that has limitless powers. I'm a bit numb. Regardless of how we vote, regardless of what we're promised, regardless of the fiery speech and protestation, the downward spiral continues.
Bison Risk Management Associates at Accept The Challenge

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
~Thomas Jefferson, 1778

Because of Bill's increasing concerns about the serious, sobering and perilous times we are living and being manipulated into, his intentions will be mainly devoted (as he has been) to posting articles that will alert, inform, expose, and wake up a sleeping reading public. This involves the issues that are not covered, or not covered truthfully by the "National News Media." "In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell.

To warn the public of the present and coming danger of permitting the federalizing of local police departments across our nation is of the utmost importance, if allowed to continue it will result in the planned replication of the infamous "Nazi storm troopers" reminiscent of Hitler´s Germany in recent past history.

Also of grave concern is the agenda of "Sustainable Development."

"It is the official policy of every state government, and nearly every city, town and county in the nation. But, I warn you, accepting the perception that Sustainable Development is simply good environmental stewardship is a serious and dangerous mistake…
Sustainable Development is the process by which America is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait...

…Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy…
…The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society"…

Feudalism is the power over slaves.

…"According to Sustainablist doctrine, it is a social injustice for some to have prosperity if others do not. It is a social injustice to keep our borders closed. It is a social injustice for some to be bosses and others to be merely workers.

Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development: Another word for social justice, by the way, is Socialism. Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase "social justice." Some officials try to pretend that Sustainable Development is just a local effort to protect the environment -- just your local leaders putting together a local vision for the community. Then ask your local officials how it is possible that the exact language and tactics for implementation of Sustainable Development are being used in nearly every city around the globe from Lewiston, Maine to Singapore. Local indeed…" Tom DeWeese www.americanpolicy.org

…"Are you starting to see the pattern behind Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all of those commercials you´re forced to watch about the righteousness of Going Green? They are all part of the enforcement of Sustainable Development…" Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN´s Rio Earth Summit in 1992

"…The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind." Tom DeWeese

"A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs. 22:3 N.L.T

Got Debt?  Get Debt Wise.