Tom Woods vs. Mark Levin Debate

Forget the presidential debates, the real action is between historian Tom Woods (PhD Havard) and ex-lawyer Mark "the great one" Levin.



First up, Mark on his radio show discussing the history of the US and War as transcribed by a Paul supporter:

Mark Levin’s show from March 25, 2011 is where he attempts to correct us vandals. His rant starts at the 16:00 mark. It then picks up at the 17:15 mark. At about 21:50 he makes his typical “RuPaul” remark. Then at 25:02 he starts again until about 29:22. BTW 25:02 is where he really hones in on Ron Paul.
For refutations on war powers see here, here, here, here,here, here, here,here, and here.
Edit: I typed up a transcript of most of what he said. I did it in haste, so the punctuation and words may be off a bit.
16:00
"...the mosquitoes out there who think they understand the founding and the Constitution, and there out there telling us things that are not accurate. Some of the libertarians have the constitution dead wrong. And some of the neocons have policy dead wrong. We’ve been involved in many military engagements; we’ve had very few declarations of war. And I’m including military engagements that were involved in by people you consider Founders of this nation. It’s because they’ve never, ever, required as a requisite—to defending this country, or even certain military actions—of getting Congress’ approval."
17:15
"...During the Constitutional Convention there was some debate, although not a lot, over war powers—who would have what powers. So I want to repeat this for those out there who write stupid stuff and are a little dense because they’re advancing a dogma rather than an honest assessment of what our history is. You can see some of these morons on television too. The language was originally “Congress shall make war.” The framers rejected that. And instead replaced “make” with “declare.” The president of the United States, well, they made him the commander in chief. Now why do you think they did those two things? Out of basic logic. They knew it was a dangerous world—hell they’ve been in a revolution. And by the way, after the revolution and establishment of our government it wasn’t clear still that it would survive given all the threats that we faced. So there had to be a commander in chief who could act quickly to muster the forces to defend the nation. Not to muster the paper work to send to Congress—to get Congress to decide—if he should defend the nation. And keep in mind, Congress didn’t meet all the time, its members were all over the damn place, it took two or three days for some of them even to get to Washington. Communication was very poor; they were never going to give war-making power to Congress. As for declaring war, if you actually understand the original intent of the framers, and the environment they were living in, the declaration of war was a declaration to the world that we are in a state of war with “X, Y, Z,” country. More than anything else it was also a diplomatic statement of fact—Congress declaring war. But the founders didn’t want a Monarchy either; they didn’t want an all-powerful president who at all times can do whatever he wanted, even though we needed a commander in chief. And so the power of the purse, not just to domestic activities, but certainly foreign activities, including the United States Military at the time: the navy and the army. And as Hamilton pointed out, it’s the ultimate power—the power of the purse. So if Congress really believed that what the president was doing was not in the nation’s best interest, it could cut him off at the knees. In other words, Congress has a power, more powerful than the War Powers Act.—which in my view is absolutely unconstitutional—which is why the left-wing Congress pushed it through over Richard Nixon’s veto in 1973; priory to 1973, Congress had the power to do what Congress has always had the power to do: defund. And as I pointed out two or three days ago, they did exactly that to end the Vietnam war. So why people re debated the war powers act. “RuPaul” at 21:50
25:02:
Mark goes on the Ron Paul attacked: saying “Ron Paul, early on felt that the attack on 9-11 was provoked by us, because of all our intervention in the Arab and Muslim World. That’s why I dismissed him. I’m not going to back somebody like that, ever. We didn’t provoke a damn thing. Hate American First—no I’m sorry I’m not into that. So you think my view in odd, well that’s funny, because every single president of the United States has embraced this view—every damn one of em’, from Reagan to Obama. Now when Obama was a senator he took a different view, we know he’s a hypocrite, but that’s besides the view. And many members of Congress embrace this view too..."
Edit: Just wanted to add the in-between from 21:50-25:02. Any errors or mistakes are mine of course.
At 21:40: "To my knowledge nobody has even introduced one, or if they have, it doesn’t have any chance of passing. Therefore, I conclude from that, that despite the fact that Kucinich and “RuPaul” are all over the place—speaking for the American people they claim—Congress must by its inaction, its unwillingness to submit bills to defund this action, support it."
22:14
"Most of the occasions in which war was declared by Congress was World War II, when FDR went to Congress on several occasions to get formal declarations of war. He didn’t get formal declarations of war because there was any question of whether or not he can respond to Pearl Harbor; or immediately after Pearl Harbor, Germany’s declaration of war against us. There was no question that as Commander-in-chief he had the power to defend this nation against an attack. He sought a declaration of war, not because he wasn’t going to defend this nation, but because he wanted to make it damn clear to the whole world that we were in a state of war with the Axis powers. And he did the same with Hungrary, and several others."
23:58 “Nor are we going to pretend, against the language of the Founders, and against what they said at the Constitutional Convention, that they were turning over war-making powers, which they specifically did not, to a bunch of members of Congress who can’t even keep secrets.”

Woods responds:

UPDATE: Levin replied to this post on his Facebook page.  I have since issued a challenge to Levin to put up or shut up.  Here is that challenge. Yes, I’m as shocked as you are.  Let’s go down the list of fallacies:

“We’ve been involved in many military engagements; we’ve had very few declarations of war. And I’m including military engagements that were involved in by people you consider Founders of this nation. It’s because they’ve never, ever, required as a requisite—to defending this country, or even certain military actions—of getting Congress’ approval.”

Totally misleading.  Everybody knows we’ve had few declarations of war. But Congress has also authorized countless lesser military actions — including the ones Levin obviously has in mind when he refers to “people you consider Founders of this nation.”  Adams did not confront the French without congressional approval; same for Jefferson and the Barbary pirates.  I’ve explained this.

“The language was originally ‘Congress shall make war.’ The framers rejected that. And instead replaced ‘make’ with ‘declare.’”

I’ve covered this, too.  It doesn’t even come close to meaning what Levin wants it to.

The constitutional convention was “never going to give war-making power to Congress.”

Sure. Just ignore all the testimony to the contrary.  Of course, Levin could be referring to the power to defend the country in an emergency, but even FDR went to Congress after the U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor!

“As for declaring war, if you actually understand the original intent of the framers, and the environment they were living in, the declaration of war was a declaration to the world that we are in a state of war with ‘X, Y, Z,’ country. More than anything else it was also a diplomatic statement of fact—Congress declaring war.”

This is the classic John Yoo argument, and also wrong.  In the 18th century a “declaration of war” could just as easily mean the initiation of hostilities itself.  This, too, is addressed in my overview.

“And as Hamilton pointed out, it’s the ultimate power—the power of the purse.”

Here Levin is trying to claim that the power of Congress over warmaking is confined to the power to de-fund presidential wars.  But as long as Levin wants to quote Hamilton, let’s quote Hamilton, from Federalist #69:

“The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. 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 to the raisingand regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”

Hamilton elsewhere says that the president’s war powers consist of “the direction of war when authorized or begun.”

Well, that’s pretty much the opposite of Levin’s view.

“You think my view is odd? Well that’s funny, because every single president of the United States has embraced this view—every damn one of em’, from Reagan to Obama.”

Yes, it is simply unthinkable that the two political parties could both defy the Constitution in the same way for 30 whole years.  I mean, we have no precedent for such a thing elsewhere in government, where both parties have scrupulously observed constitutional limits for decades and decades.

And Levin's Facebook response:

I'm embarrassed for Woods.  He knows I know he's a propagandist on this issue.  His misuse of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, and other quotes here and there is politically expedient. There's nothing scholarly about it.

Of course it is wise politically and from a policy standpoint for a president to consult with Congress or even seek resolutions to support military actions.  It also helps prevent Congress from cutting off funding down the road. In certain cases, particularly where military operations involve the very survival of the nation such as WWII, the president would be wise to seek a war declaration that informs the world of our nation's intention to destroy another society.  In the few occasions Congress has declared war, most involved WWII.  This is what the Framers intended. But it is not and never has been a constitutional requisite to making war.  And Woods knows it. 

History, facts, experience, and events prove the Left and Paulists wrong, like Woods, but they are true believers so it doesn't matter. Woods would fundamentally alter our constitutional construct respecting war, the executive, and legislative functions, fabricating additional power in Congress- even authorizing one House of Congress under the War Powers Act to ensure defeat on the battlefield if the battle is not completed in 90 days through a silent veto- while denuding the commander-in-chief power. Is that what they said at the Constitutional Convention? Is that supported anywhere in our history? Is that how Congress is to legislate under the Constitution?  Utter nonsense. 

What bothers Woods, et al, is that defunding military operations is not easy work politically or legislatively. It requires veto proof congressional action.  So he insists on an easier way out. But there is none. I've discussed it at length on my show and here, and I've posted several scholarly links as well.

If Woods doesn't agree with the Framers, if he wants to change the Constitution, giving Congress additional powers to end military operations,  giving Congress an operational role in military affairs, or requiring congressional approval before military operations commence, then he should make that case for a constitutional amendment and stop deceiving and demanding short cuts.  But he wont.  He has calculated that Congress, the states, and ultimately the public won't support such an effort.  He's an activist who demands fidelity not to the Constitution but his ideology.  The liberal activists do the same. Neither are originalists. 

Woods fires back:

 Notice something? He refutes nothing I said, and then declares himself the winner. Nice.I see nothing in what Levin thinks is a reply that should make any of his supporters proud, or that should cause me to abandon my constitutional views. I am accused of misusing the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist, etc., but Levin does not condescend to share any specific examples of this alleged misuse. We are to be satisfied with his ex cathedra pronouncements alone.Nowhere does he address my refutations of his arguments, whether regarding the real eighteenth-century meaning of "declaration of war," the intentions of the Framers, or the cases of unilateral presidential warmaking Levin wants to cite that I have shown were nothing of the kind.And no wonder: there is no evidence for his position at all. People coming to a discussion of war powers and the Constitution for the first time may assume, understandably, that Levin can probably cite some sources, I can cite some sources, and the whole thing is probably a stalemate. But Levin can cite nothing.

The very fact that Levin thinks this issue is even debatable, in light of how abundant are the citations against his made-up position, indicates how far in over his head he is. He has evidently read John Yoo (whose positions Kevin Gutzman and I dismantled in our book Who Killed the Constitution?) and little else.Now it’s true that Levin cites unnamed "scholarly links" that support his position, though he does not share them with me. Were my position so easily refuted, you’d think he’d just go ahead and do it, instead of handing me an unspecified reading assignment.But you know what? To heck with the scholarly links. They’re probably to John Yoo, whose work on war powers is of exactly zero value. Then I’ll link to the work of Louis Fisher, and Levin will dismisshim, and we will have made no progress. So forget the secondary sources. Let’s get to the primary sources. Mark Levin, here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article – whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.If I’m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.To be sure, Levin could claim that the fact that many presidents have ignored the Constitution amounts to an implicit amendment of the Constitution, but I doubt that kind of left-wing argument is one a self-proclaimed "originalist" should be eager to embrace.Incidentally, I was amused to see, in the comments section beneath Levin’s piece, several of Levin’s followers assume I must be a "liberal revisionist" historian because I hold the constitutional view of presidential war powers. The traditional conservative position, as Russell Kirk and others made clear, recoiled at a strong and independent executive, a fact that years of neoconservative reeducation of the masses has done much to obscure. I suppose Senator Robert Taft, known in his day as "Mr. Republican," was likewise a "liberal revisionist" for making, in 1950, the very same arguments I am advancing against Levin today?In fact, when Taft denied that Harry Truman could commit troops to Korea without congressional authorization, his major intellectual opponents were left-liberal historians Henry Steele Commager and Arthur Schlesinger. Levin listeners, this is the side your host has placed you on: against the Senate’s great twentieth-century conservative, and in support of the left-liberal historians who hated him. But here’s the difference between them and Levin: years later they had the decency to admit they had been wrong on the facts, and that Taft had been right.Levin says he is "embarrassed" for me, so transparently have I allegedly prostituted my historical scholarship on behalf of my political ideology. He must have an acute sense of embarrassment indeed, since it appears to paralyze his ability to respond with specifics when his position is completely destroyed. And indeed so non-embarrassed am I that I heartily encourage all the world to read all the original sources, mine and his, linked at the beginning of this essay.Perish the thought, but could it be that it is Levin, who supports the bipartisan foreign-policy consensus with such gusto, who has cherry-picked evidence from the historical record to suit his political position? That could be, but I doubt it. For that to be the case, there would have to be some evidence in the historical record to cherry-pick for his position in the first place.

And the challenge responded to by Levin:

Why didn't the Framers explicitly require the president to seek approval from Congress before engaging in all acts of war, and enumerate such power in Congress?  If they granted the president, as commander-in-chief, the power to only repel military acts against the nation without congressional authority, why did they not enumerate that?  What of offensive military actions taken to prevent imminent threats?  What of covert operations for that matter, or extended wars fought over decades but mostly through surrogates (such as the Cold War)?  What must be declared and when?     

-- I repeat, the Congress -- has funded every kind of military and covert operation -- untold numbers of them -- without issuing a formal declaration of war in the vast majority of cases.  What stops it?   It does not need permission or a request from a president to issue a formal proclamation.  It issues proclamations about meaningless things all the time without being asked.    The Constitution says Congress shall have the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water ..." 

When members of Congress vote to fund these activities, they are giving their formal, official consent to the operations.  More than voting to declare war, they are actually voting to fund war -- all kinds of war.  Interestingly, in most of the cases in which Congress has formally declared -- which is World War II -- there was never any doubt that the president would use all possible military force to protect the nation, and Congress would fund it, even without any declarations.  The declarations were not used as constitutional requisites for war, but to rally the nation and assert our resolve.  But once Congress has funded a military operation, and it funds virtually all of them, it is undoubtedly helping to make war for without the funds there can be no war.  Thus, in each instance, it is declaring war its support for the military actions            

What of military operations launched by a president where the president uses funds already appropriated by Congress before the operations began, but which were approved for general national security purposes -- that is, where Congress has not actually voted on funding a particular operation?  Without question Congress has the power to withhold appropriations or defund operations, if it can muster enough votes to overcome a presidential veto.  Congress rarely does so, although most notably in ending the Vietnam War.  Congress has the power to enforce its decisions by impeaching a president and removing him from office should he continue to prosecute military operations after it has formally acted to end them.  Hence, comparisons between the president and a monarch are ridiculous.  These are very powerful tools, should Congress decide to use them.  However, even now, when the president has directed military operations in Libya, is Congress even considering cutting off funding?  What about the Republican majority in the House?  No.  But there is no question that congressional authority respecting war powers is significant, which distinguishes our system from many, including a monarchy.  But make no mistake, it is not significant enough for the neo-anarchists, who cherry-pick their way through history to promote a dogma.

"But Mark," asks the outlier professor, "here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article – whatever."

Consulting Congress?  Now, notice how the outlier professor changes the subject.  I've been at this now for the better part of a week.  I've explained my position on radio, on Fox, and on this site.  I think it is extremely wise for a president to consult with Congress (well, not all 535 members but members in leadership positions) before launching non-defensive military actions for both policy and political reasons.  In fact, most presidents claim to have done so in one form or another respecting most military operations.  I cannot imagine any Federalist would have argued against a president consulting with Congress.  Why would they?  But that was not the issue.  Consulting Congress is a far cry from arguing that a president is required, as a constitutional requisite to military operations, to secure a declaration of war.  So, the outlier professor would be misstating what I said and dodging the issue, apparently something he has been accused of before by another professor, Ronald Radosh http://hnn.us/articles/10493.html  You don't have to agree with Professor Radosh's views, but he raises a serious concern.   

Anyway, there you have it folks.  Either you are convinced or you are not.  If not, then you have to conclude, as they do here, that Ronald Reagan was a neo-con, monarch, warmonger, or whatever.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html    I have to move on, but I am sure the Paulite dead-enders will carry on.   

(By the way, Russell Kirk despised libertarians.  I am not of the same mind in that regard.  Some of my best friends are libertarians - just not of the neo-anarchist kind.)  

No, he could NOT produce the name of one Federalist who took the position of the President launching pre-emptive wars. He just blathered on and on. Notice how he uses name-calling to marginalize the opponent in the debate. He is absolutely unable to meet the challenge, which is just as simple as a Google search, but instead he talks himself into circles and says "there we have it folks". There we have WHAT?? You rambling on and on like an eight grader?

Tom Woods Declares Victory - Wasn't Too Hard

So Mark Levin has responded to my challenge today. Did he find a Federalist who agrees with him that a president can launch a non-defensive war without consulting congress? I was a real sport -- I let him look through the ratifying conventions of every single state, and I also let him cite public lectures or newspaper articles. Really anything at all. Did he find someone, anyone?
Of course not. Instead, he pretends I am too stupid to understand his position: "I've explained my position on radio, on Fox, and on this site. I think it is extremely wise for a president to consult with Congress (well, not all 535 members but members in leadership positions) before launching non-defensive military actions for both policy and political reasons. In fact, most presidents claim to have done so in one form or another respecting most military operations. I cannot imagine any Federalist would have argued against a president consulting with Congress."
And I'm the one changing the subject? This is beyond belief.
Mark, the point is not and has never been whether it is wise for the president to consult Congress. The point is whether he is allowed to conduct offensive operations without consulting them. That is your position.
And I have shown that there is zero -- ZERO -- evidence that the Constitution allows this. Levin's ham-handed evasion of my challenge has only amplified my point. I am changing the subject, he says. Well, let's let the whole world look at what we've written -- all of which I link to in my piece today -- and they may decide for themselves who is addressing the issue and who is running away from it. Levin's position is that the president may launch offensive operations without consulting Congress. I deny that this was any part of the original constitutional intent. That is the entirety of the disagreement between us. Whether it would be nice for the president to consult Congress, whether it's practical for him to do so, etc., are entirely irrelevant to a discussion of this specific issue. Those are forms of evasion, as even Levin's own followers are capable of seeing.
I have already made clear that the president has the constitutional authority to engage in purely defensive measures. That's what George Washington said he was doing against the Indians. But when the issue of offensive operations against the Indians came up, he said he would have to consult Congress for that. Not too confusing.
Mark has no time for further exchanges -- he is Mark Levin, remember -- but he did have time, to show how unreliable I allegedly am, to dig up an article from six years ago by Marxist-turned-social-democrat Ronald Radosh. Radosh didn't like my Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, though I'm hardly surprised; most neocons, for all their talk, have a pretty conventional view of American history, and my book was much too politically incorrect for them. I dealt with my critics on that long ago (see "replies to critics"). At the top of my website one can find a rotating series of endorsements of my work from periodicals like the Journal of American History, the American Historical Review, Choice (the review publication for academic libraries), and others, any one of whose opinions is worth a teensy bit more than that of Ronald Radosh, whoever he is.
One gentleman asked, without any invective or disrespect, if Levin would be willing to debate me, perhaps at the Reagan Library in California. That gentleman was simply deleted from Levin's Facebook page.

I win.

Who's the statist again?

In related news, Limbaughs and Hannity's ratings are down, way down, like 30% since last year. People are shutting off this crap in droves because their narratives no longer represent the reality that we are all witnessing. 

Here's the Mark Levin map. One thing most people don't know about Mark is that he is the president of Landmark Legal Foundation. That's right yet another non-profit. It's kind of a mixed bag with people like Walter Williams, whom most people like, to consummate Insiders like Ed Meese, whom Mark was assistant to during the whole Iran-Contra episode. I went ahead and mapped out the connection to those in the Landmark Legal Foundation. Notice one Richard Schaife, heir to the Mellon fortune (read Bankster),  who is very much invested in our overseas military adventures, and a big time donor to Landmark. If Mark Levin is beholden to this Schaife, then it only stands to reason that he would support the very lucrative practice of pre-emptive undeclared war. Food for thought:

link

Now I'm not saying that the Landmark Legal Foundation doesn't do good work, but it never hurts to see who's footing the bills and what the prevailing influences are to determine where a certain mindset is coming from.