to be blind again and not see

There was a time I was blind, then I could see. And in placing a fault, blame Dad, not me. If it wasn’t for him, I wouldn’t be. Only, not in the sense most would think. Because he placed in my hands the Constitution and Federalist (papers) to read. And if not, what became the desire to learn would my blindness still be. Only today, to be blind, I wish I could be, the angst of having learned what shouldn’t be. Thus, in the game of blame, is it me and not he? Or should finger pointing always be?

Anyway, against my poetic diarizing, President Trump levelled three nuclear sites in Iran. His desire: Keep Iran the nation from developing and using a nuclear weapon. Except … isn’t the only nation yet to use such in combat America? The reasoning then: End WWII. The resultant desire; bring a warring nation to its knees by annihilating almost a quarter million of its civilian population using just two bombs. But wasn’t it already basically done: The nation Japan on its knees? Except, to perspectivize from one to the other requires an oxymoron of thought to cogently bring together eighty years of historical obfuscational rewrites to prove a validation of both events in either case.

And in teaching or understanding the right or wrong of nuclear fission, America, today purposely divided by Party to justify the justification, having used atomic energy to destroy while keeping another nation from having the same capability. A we can, you can’t, but why should either, even though others do? Except, in all the power posturing; the United Nations? What has become the most feckless body of supposed world protection ever proposed. A pay to enrich the few structure of prevarication. Its desire; accomplish nothing. But I’m digressing. So, consider the recent strikes performed. They were single-handedly executed by order of the president, begging: Does he even have the power? Which has the Constitution, Article II/Section 2 being bantered about giving the president executive authority:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Which questions: Where exactly is the power to attack granted? Especially when the article/section clearly clarifies: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; which requires Congress: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; (Constitution/Article I/Section 8/10^th Clause). Thinking, when one draws first blood, are they intentionally hoping to provoke war? And yes, I understand “Peace through strength.” But like Rambo in “First Blood,” his desire was to be left alone, only the town sheriff was too arrogant to leave well enough alone and started a war. Yet, when one stronger attacks one weaker, are they not in truth a bully? Or, in Trump’s action, was it because of a Congress too coward, too divided, having abdicated its power to political Party posturing, leaving WE THE PEOPLE and the preservation thereof subject to its whims.

Now, don’t get me wrong, even I question: Has Iran become a nation of hate ruled through a religion of subjugation, thus the attack warranted? Except, in the world in which we live, and our country having been overrun with illegals, terrorists and all the mostly peaceful groups proliferating, the response may well be against civilians themselves here, just like Japan then was. A buyer beware which highlights: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; (Constitution/Article I/Section 8/1^st Clause). And if definitions have meaning, Defense: Any thing that opposes attack, violence, danger or injury; any thing that secures the person, the rights or the possessions of men; fortification; guard; protection; security. A wall, a parapet, a ditch, or a garrison, is the defense of a city or fortress. The Almighty is the defense of the righteous. Psalm 59 (Webster’s 1828). But what is the opposite of defense: Aggression. Meaning “Peace through strength” is delivering the crushing blows first? Kind of like what just took place.

Well, in 1973, the “War Powers Act” was passed to keep the executive branch from doing what it did. But how many other presidents before and after the Act having passed usurped the Constitution’s power? And was the Act even necessary? I guess in today’s political climate it all depends on the Party one stands with.

For pondering, written in the Constitution is the inability to empower another king: The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a QUALIFIED negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an ABSOLUTE negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the SOLE POSSESSOR of the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church! What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism (Federalist 69).

So, let’s end with some perspective of thought. I believe the military action executed against Iran’s nuclear facilities was a good thing but isn’t discretion the better part of valor. Although, their ability to detonate a nuclear device against an adversary based on philosophical religious differences was removed from the field of play. But conversely and concerning, the actions carried out, having been authorized through the President alone (and others before), in my opinion, unconstitutionally bespeak an oligarch of authoritarian persuasion believing they are a king. Exactly what the Framers worked to prevent, but Party is perverting, and the Supreme Court fails to define. Which should also beg: What purpose does the United Nations serve? Damn sure not righting wrong or preserving world peace! Because as much as I constitutionally disagree with the action taken, either way, good or bad, and depending on one’s perspective, Trump changed the course of history. And now war, with dirty bombs might be carried out in country, with a final question: Who drew first blood?