Unalienable rights

[Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>]

Dear visionaries,

Here is the problem. The oath taken by those who serve in the military
involves defending the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, whether foreign or domestic. We are certainly going to war in
Iraq, and we are doing so in order to accomplish "regime
change." This is a traditional war, in the old-fashioned sense of
the word. Any attempt to do this without an express declaration of war on
the part of Congress is therefore unconstitutional. Congress, and only
Congress, declares war. It is not the prerogative of the
commander-in-chief. It is not the prerogative of the United Nations.
Congress declares war. The Constitution does permit the president to some
sorts of limited military action without such a declaration (e.g. Barbary
pirates, bin-Laden), but to overthrow the government of another sovereign
nation without a declaration of war is constitutional impudence, plain
and simple.

I happen to believe that a case for legitimate war against Saddam
could be made. But we aren't making it. And the case we are making
threatens our few remaining constitutional freedoms as much as anything
Saddam is doing. The culprits? Who thrashed the Constitution? All the
progressives who show up for the march should make a point of marching on
themselves. They are the ones who have fought for, and achieved, an
elastic Constitution. "It's a living document, you see . .
." Arms don't mean arms, speech doesn't mean speech, rights don't
mean rights, and Congress doesn't mean Congress.

All is not lost, however. Some elements of the Constitution are still
obeyed. We still have two senators from every state.

Cordially,


Douglas Wilson