The American Tory

Congressman Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution when it comes to foreign policy is faulty based off the text itself and the views of its chief defender, Alexander Hamilton.

Here are some reasons why:

The Constitution vests very vague and broad powers to wage war in the hands of the Executive. This power is not defined and only seems to be limited by the power of Congress to regulate and fund the military. Beyond this, it seems once a conflict starts, the President calls the shots.

The vagueness of the war and foreign affairs powers comes from the British constitutional tradition. Where are the war powers codified in British law? They are not. The war and foreign affairs powers are vested in the Crown via over many centuries of British constitutional evolution. The only real restraint on the war power is the fact that budget bills must pass Parliament and the term limits of Parliament. Substantively, this is no different than the American Constitution.

The Constitution is imperialist by its nature. British style war powers, the power to admit new states, and the ability to acquire new lands are hallmarks of the American Constitution. These are all things you need to be an imperialist power and the United States has engaged in a form of benevolent imperialism since its founding.

The United States has almost always had an active foreign policy. Even during the time of the founders, the United States had a very active foreign policy. What do you call fighting Natives on the frontier? This was the 18th and 19th Century version of nation-building and removing oppressive regimes. Thomas Jefferson engaged in an expansionist endeavour with the Louisiana Purchase. As American stature grew, the scope of its foreign policy has grown with it. Hamilton predicted this and we truly live in the world he pictured 200 years ago.