Kings and War

by Steve Farrell (Nevada)

Edmund Burke, said of the justness of the American Revolution, that it sought not to overthrow the wisdom of the ages, but rather to build a more glorious structure upon its foundation.  Our Constitution’s rejection of Kings, and what John Locke described as the King’s “divine prerogative,” to wage war, are two of the finer improvements the founders gave us to secure liberty.

Yet today, we are confronted with the reality that we now have a President, who stands accused of exercising this “dearest prerogative of kings,” to rescue himself from his own recklessness, and accountability before the law.

Isn’t it about time, that we reign in our king and his executive war making power gone mad?

One of the first and most powerful arguments used by an American Founder to reject Kings and their unchecked power to go to war, was found in Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.”

Paine’s rejection of King’s and kingly prerogatives was based on an appeal to scripture, reason, and history, but primarily scripture. He noted that “the Almighty hath here (in the Bible) entered his protest against monarchial government.”

There we learned: “Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. [Before] then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases) was a kind of republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes [who were freely elected]. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts.”

“Government by Kings,” said Paine, was not the invention of God, as skeptics contend today, but “was first introduced into the world by the heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom.”

Israel first dabbled with the idea of Kings when they solicited the great general Gideon for such a post. “Rule thou over us, thou and thy son, and thy son’s son.” But Gideon, a type and a shadow, perhaps of another great general - Washington, rigorously refused this tempting offer. Said he, only “the Lord shall rule over you.” Gideon not only “declined the offer,” but he “denied their right to give it.” Absolute power, in the hands of any man, was an affront to God.

The Jews, followed Gideon’s advice and example, like America followed Washington, for another “one hundred and thirty years.” However, the democratic voice of the Jewish people, arrived at the moment when they deemed it right to “be like all the other nations.”  Samuel, the prophet at that later date, was disheartened by such prevailing ignorance, but the Lord told him to “hearken unto the voice of the people...howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and show them the manner of the king[s] that shall rule over them.”

Not surprisingly, the first and foremost vice of kings:  “He will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his chariots and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots and he will appoint captains over thousands and captains over fifty....to make instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.”

War, a mandatory draft, the creation of a manufacturing war machine (which would include - according to Samuel - woman going to work to support the kings soldiers) - fueled by an income tax (an oppressive 1/10th), would be the result, and it happened. Additionally, Israel soon split into two nations due to a revolt over income taxes, found themselves involved in entangling alliances - also against prophetic counsel, involved themselves in endless wars, lost their independence to a string of conquerors, and were finally sacked all together by the Romans.  

Should Americans, therefore, be surprised that since the days of President Woodrow Wilson (who has been identified with the ascent of executive power), that United States for the first time instituted and kept an income tax, for the first time instituted a general and mandatory draft, for the first time embroiled itself in entangling alliances and the wars which attend such alliances, for the first time saw American women flood into the workforce, and now, for the first time, finds itself subject to a President who feels free to go to war, even invent wars, not in self defense, but to protect or enhance his personal power against impeachment.

The founders, learned from history, the Bible, and common sense, that one man should never be entrusted with such great power. Even good men, as was the case in ancient Israel, found themselves corrupted by unchecked centralized power. Hence, the near maxim “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” 

James Madison, maintained, men were not angels, and “thus external [and] internal controls on government would be necessary (Federalist 51).” In the case of the war powers, our President never possessed any, except to be Commander-In-Chief, after Congress first declared war. Or to be merely, what Hamilton described, as  “head general.”

By the Constitution, only Congress can declare war, only Congress can regulate the troops, and only Congress can authorize the cash necessary to finance war. However, Clinton has gone to war without the authority of Congress, Clinton has established military regulations without the consent of Congress, and Clinton has put troops in harms way, even before any money was allocated to do it.

The danger we now see, in a President who seems willing to wag the dog of war, risk human lives, impose taxes to pay for it, all to serve the survival of his presidency, should be a stiff reminder to us all that the founders were right to strip presidents of such prerogatives. We would do well to return to the Constitution.