Has the U.S. constitutionally run amok?

Who decides whether war continues in Iraq? Some might answer Gen. Petraeus. Others might say Congress. But most probably believe the president has oversight of foreign and war policy. 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. This 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 making other unilateral international policies.

On the other hand, pro-Bush allies say executive government officials have always 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," by sending a small regiment of warships to the Mediterranean to ward off attacks by the Barbary Powers.

I completely honor and support our servicemen and women. That is why I've been to Iraq twice (in 2006 and 2007), shaking hands and encouraging nearly 40,000 troops. I also believe that we ought to better enforce our borders, as well as carry out tactical means abroad to deter terrorism at home. And I don't believe our founders could have even imagined the type of global terrorism we wage war against today. And our military and executive leaders undoubtedly know many things we citizens don't. But my devout patriotic support and belief does not take away from the fact that we must continue to constitutionally follow 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:

TRENDING: Republicans move to replace GOP canvasser who voted to certify Biden win

The Congress shall have power … to declare war. (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution)

The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into 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 President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. … It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and the raising and regulating of fleets and armies,– all of which by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." (Alexander Hamilton, 1788)

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)

The Congress shall have the power to declare war; the plain meaning of which is, that it is the peculiar and exclusive duty of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war. (Alexander Hamilton, 1801)

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 Napolitano concludes in his book "Constitutional Chaos" that the whole government has constitutionally run amok, 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 it is going to take we, the people, to 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."

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.

(Chuck's column now runs in syndication through Creators Syndicate. Subscriptions can be obtained by contacting Creators Syndicate. To check out some of his non-political articles, see Chuck's WND archives.)