"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.My friends Jim and Lisa recently mused: "All of the candidates are converging into a singularity; "unidimensional" would be the charitable term. The terror is in reaching that singularity, for then life will become infinitely distorted, and there will be no escape."
"Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'
"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.
"This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."
To which I would only add; there is and always has been an escape, would we be bold enough to seize upon it. By law we are supposed to be the masters of our own destiny. If, instead, we choose to let our President, or Presidents, become our king, our supposed public servants become our masters, we have only ourselves to blame.