On What Legitimate, Ethical Authority?

What legitimate, ethical authority do the highest levels of our Fed Gov't have to...

1.  launch a pre-emptive war?  [as in the case of the 2003 Iraq invasion by the USA];

2.  tell Iran that it can't have a nuclear program?  [when Israel has ~ 200 nuclear weapons, and the USA is developing or upgrading so-called "tactical" nukes];

3.  impose sanctions on Russia for intervening in a civil war?  [when the highest levels of our Fed Gov't do the same thing on an almost regular basis];

4.  develop (paraphrased) "tools to guide Venezuela in the direction it needs to go"?  [Venezuela is a sovereign nation...it can go in any direction it so desires];

5.  insist (via the IMF and/or World Bank) that any particular country undergo "austerity"?  [when the USA is the largest debtor nation in the world...and there's no visible austerity imposed by our Gov't];

6.  spy on our allies?  [and then condemn other nations for doing the same to us];

7.  act as the world's Police Force?  [without any U.N. authorization];

8.  refuse to return Guantanamo (which essentially was stolen by us) to Cuba?;

9.  refuse to recognize the sovereignty of Native American Indian Nations?  [said sovereignty being guaranteed by numerous Treaties...all of which have been broken by the Feds];

10.  launch weaponized drone strikes into countries (e.g., Pakistan), killing both SUSPECTS and innocent civilians, when the "intelligence" identifying the suspects largely is from cell phone meta-data?  [Pakistan has told our Gov't to cease and desist more than once.]
..................................................................................

The answer to all of the above is...NONE.  There is no legitimate, ethical authority for those actions.  Every patriot (as opposed to nationalist) should point that out... loudly and repeatedly.

Not just my opinion.  Be Well

Syria and Our Constitution

Here we go again. Read the Constitution---there are only two uses of the military permitted: 1. to repel invasions; 2. to quell insurrections. To get around that, Presidents have been relying on the War Powers Act to use our military pretty much whenever they see fit. The trouble is...laws do NOT supercede the Constitution. Using our military as the world's police force, no matter how justified, is unconstitutional. There is no legitimate authority for that use.  Yes, what's happening in Syria is an obscenity, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with constitutional use of the military.

An Amendment is required to change the situation, but politicians just pass laws instead. [It's easier to do that than to get 3/4ths of the States to ratify a new Amendment.] That's called "Legislative Absolutism", a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901; it means passing laws with no regard for the limitations placed upon the Feds by the Constitution.

Let's not forget that Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, & others all had "laws" in place to justify their actions, too. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Change it if you must, but do not simply ignore it. Changing it must be done by amendment or a constitutional convention; no other ways are permitted in our system of government. None.

As always...just my opinion...after ~ 50 years of serious study of the U.S. Constitution, probably the most plainly written document ever put forth by a government.