In the 1790s, even as the Republic was still wet clay, Washington and Adams both faced fierce public scrutiny over foreign policy decisions and neither claimed that wartime footing suspended the public’s right to question them. The debates over the Jay Treaty were ferocious, but they were also understood as part of the constitutional design
Jefferson said it plainly during the Barbary conflicts: “It is the people’s business to know why their sons are sent to fight.” That wasn’t disloyalty. That was republicanism.
And in the 19th century, Lincoln, in the middle of the Civil War, endured blistering criticism from Congress, the press, and the public. He never suggested that “we are at war” obligated automatic assent.
Quite the opposite. He repeatedly argued that the preservation of the Union required more transparency, not less, because executive power expands most dangerously when citizens fall silent.
Our tradition has always been that war heightens scrutiny, not suspends it.
So when McGrath insists that the President must justify the use of force to the people’s representatives, he’s not being contrarian. He’s standing squarely in the lineage of the early republic, where questioning power was understood not as dissent, but as the mechanism by which the Republic keeps its shape.
The core of the “historical tradition” test, the legal theory behind that argument is thus,
“Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” - From District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Patriotism in a constitutional system is measured not by obedience, but by vigilance.
Concur, and endorse in all aspects. A sure sign of institutional drift is wallowing into an unintentional, growing war. Once key institutions are hollowed out and replaced by actors who treat legal constraints as optional, a nation can drift into catastrophic conflict without ever making a conscious decision.
Japan’s descent into militarism began not with Hirohito but with bureaucrats, officers, and citizens who pre conformed to what they imagined the state desired.
Timothy Snyder’s first three lessons…do not obey in advance, defend institutions, beware the one party state…describe precisely this dynamic. The Kodoha and Toseiha factions did not seize power from a strong civilian government; they filled a vacuum created by anticipatory obedience and institutional timidity.
The United States today faces a similar softening of institutional muscle: agencies that bend toward perceived political winds, citizens who internalize the logic of inevitability, and political actors who treat pluralism as optional, rather than foundational.
I’m in alignment with you Bryan. WRT drug boat attacks, I written Sen. McCormick, the junior senator from Pennsylvania and a West Point grad, asking for his opinion of the legality of the drone strikes on drug boats. I pointed specifically to Andy McCarthy’s articles in the National Review arguing these attacks were illegal. I also asked him why the Pentagon and the White House have failed to present their legal arguments for the legality of those strikes. Sen. McCormick’s only response was simply that he considered it within the President’s Article II authority. That seems a huge stretch to me.
I also wrote him saying the Congress should pass legislation authorizing the President’s Iran policies. No response to this.
I have to wonder about his commitment West Point’s motto “Duty, Honor, Country”.
Regarding Iran: Matters of war, particularly before the first act, can be murky and hard to see clearly as was Pearl Harbor after we cut of sales of scrap metal and oil to Japan and before the attack. Similarly with Iran; would the cautionary waiting route lead us to a mushroom cloud? Who knows, but I couldn't stand the idea of the army of righteous legistators promising to 'make sure' that "it will never happen again." That just isnt good enough.
Perhaps, but until we know whether some disaffected American millionaire living in China is sending money to buy bricks to throw at policemen and until we know whether the tsunami of leftist sentiment flooding the internet and driving sympathetic legislators in their policy making decisions, originates with Americans or alien bots or other sources anathematic to the good order of our culture and our legal system, we have an executive operating with one hand tied behind his back in a world climate that requires at least both hands.
You do know that it's not leftist sentiment driving Congress right? That Congress is controlled by the Republican party and they're not making "leftist" decisions?
I could say that this is a slippery comment and stop there. The leftist 'decisions' are not legistation, but by only the thinnest of margins and AOC and the squad, Jaime Raskin and others desperate to add population to SCOTUS and further erase congressions rules of order are simply liberal American politicians? Ok then.
I have an urge to respond to you...but realize it serves no purpose. But you may want to know that tickets for the UFC gig can be bought with Trump coins for a discount.
I am sad that what should be a grand celebration of the 250th anniversary of our nation has ended up being turned into a bunch of silly things by the president and his inherently polarizing nature.
Bread and Circuses indeed — I applaud your continued efforts to surface the issue of political party allegiance — Über alles — coupled with equal levels of apathy at the socioeconomic course of our great Republic. If only there were examples in recorded history to reflect upon, great cognitive extrapolation or leaps of imagination not necessary…
Everyone should reread the Declaration of Independence and ponder upon the wisdom, temerity, and conviction necessary to incite, instill, AND maintain a free and productive society!
I could make a case that Alvin Holsey did depart due to the illegal strikes against the small boats. He is a good man so I was not surprised. But there are way too many Naval Officers, who know better, who are executing these illegal strikes. Army, Air Force officers, fine, they don’t know the (lower case) law of the sea. But the Naval Officers being involved is depressing.
POTUS and the Intelligence Community have access to GEOINT and other Multi-INT data and information to make decisions on what is or is not an eminent threat - the press, congress and you and I DO NOT - you are entitled to your opinion but come on, when you were a commander, how did you like monday morning QB’s critiquing your command decisions?! The American people elected POTUS- we are at war - please knock off the Iranian propaganda
One of the duties of an informed citizenry is to question political leadership. If there were an imminent threat--especially given the heat the President has taken--we would have heard about it. Such was NEVER a feature of their backstory. They have NEVER made an imminent threat argument, You don't get to say "we are at war" as if that obligates me to support a reckless decision not validated by the legislative branch representing the American people. My propaganda, such as it is, is distinctly American.
Absolutely agree on the duties of an informed citizenry! The legislature abrogated their responsibility to declare war DECADES ago - our military is at war - that obligates citizens to stay informed - but repeating IRGC spokesmen's talking points is spreading propaganda! Your argument that if there really was an imminent threat we never would of heard about it doesn't make sense, except to use your logic, we never heard about it! Gabbard stated that the determination of "imminence" is made by the President, not intelligence agencies. She is absolutely CORRECT!
Nothing has been presented to Congress in closed session that suggested an imminent threat to the U.S. and our vital national interests. If the Administration had done so, in closed session, those highly classified and compartmented data would not have been leaked but would have justified either a declaration of war or, at least, an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress would have almost immediately approved.
That way, our war against Iran would comply with our Constitutional procedures.
That the President did not do this shows his disrespect and disregard for our Constitution.
Gospodin McGregor, the allegations you use are not intemperate or personally insulting, and I thank you for that.
I worked with TS/SCI data for 21 years on a daily basis. I never testified before a Congressional committee, but I know that some of the information I authored was presented to appropriate committees, which consisted of Republican and Democratic Party officials. My statement, that I am unaware of any leaks of classified or compartmented data by members of the House or Senate Armed Services of Intelligence committees, is base on my knowledge, not my dreams.
When I dream, I sometimes dream that our nation never tore itself apart in a Civil War, or a Great Depression, or two World Wars, or Vietnam, or Jim Crow, or lynchings. I often dream that the love of my life had not been killed in a automotive accident during her Navy tour.
But, dreams are dreams, regardless of one's political associations.
I too worked for an Intel agency for 14 years and deployed with mission partners to OEF & OIF (and served in uniform for 24)- the Intel community leaks like a sieve - saw it first hand - in and out if uniform - in DC, IRQ and AFG!
Thank you for your service and so sorry for your lost loved one
Just to name two leaks:
Pentagon Papers (1971): While initiated by the RAND Corporation, this monumental leak of classified U.S. military operations deeply involved the Armed Services Committees. The documents revealed that the Johnson administration had systematically misled Congress and the public, prompting a series of hearings and investigations to uncover the full extent of the deception
Global Intel Platform Leaks (2023): Dozens of pages of highly sensitive, classified Department of Defense and intelligence documents detailing war strategies and U.S. assessments regarding the conflict in Ukraine were leaked onto a gaming platform. While the leak originated elsewhere, the leadership of the House Armed Services Committee publicly stepped in, issuing a letter demanding accountability and answers from the Pentagon regarding the unauthorized disclosures.
Politicians can't keep secrets - if you or I had leaked, we would be in Ft Leavenworth NOT on Sunday talk shows
After "watching" the Iranians for 14 years and seeing first-hand their capabilities in Iraq - there is no doubt in my mind that an imminent threat has existed for a LONG time - maybe not an ICBM nuke but more likely a dirty bomb detonated INSIDE the US.
Could POTUS have done something to inform Congress before the first strike - absolutely- but that was his call
The President's "Article II powers include authority not only to order the use of military force to defend the United States and U.S. persons against actual or anticipated attacks, but also to advance other important national interests. Presidents of both parties have deployed U.S. forces and ordered the use of military force, without congressional authorization, on numerous occasions.
In addition to the powers granted to the president in Article II, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to “declare War.” But this authority has never been interpreted—by either Congress or the executive branch—to require congressional authorization for every military action that the president could initiate."
Mr. McGregor, I am unaware of any instance, alleged or documented, of leaks of classified, compartmented data by bipartisan members of the House and Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees who are cleared to review such data.
No, I don't know - and neither could nor should I know - what information the Administration delivered to Congress AFTER it started the Iran war.
I know that the Administration did not seek from Congress either a declaration of war or, at least, an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, prior to starting this war.
I am surprised FIFA decided to include the U.S. in the tourney.
In the 1790s, even as the Republic was still wet clay, Washington and Adams both faced fierce public scrutiny over foreign policy decisions and neither claimed that wartime footing suspended the public’s right to question them. The debates over the Jay Treaty were ferocious, but they were also understood as part of the constitutional design
Jefferson said it plainly during the Barbary conflicts: “It is the people’s business to know why their sons are sent to fight.” That wasn’t disloyalty. That was republicanism.
And in the 19th century, Lincoln, in the middle of the Civil War, endured blistering criticism from Congress, the press, and the public. He never suggested that “we are at war” obligated automatic assent.
Quite the opposite. He repeatedly argued that the preservation of the Union required more transparency, not less, because executive power expands most dangerously when citizens fall silent.
Our tradition has always been that war heightens scrutiny, not suspends it.
So when McGrath insists that the President must justify the use of force to the people’s representatives, he’s not being contrarian. He’s standing squarely in the lineage of the early republic, where questioning power was understood not as dissent, but as the mechanism by which the Republic keeps its shape.
The core of the “historical tradition” test, the legal theory behind that argument is thus,
“Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” - From District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Patriotism in a constitutional system is measured not by obedience, but by vigilance.
Concur, and endorse in all aspects. A sure sign of institutional drift is wallowing into an unintentional, growing war. Once key institutions are hollowed out and replaced by actors who treat legal constraints as optional, a nation can drift into catastrophic conflict without ever making a conscious decision.
Japan’s descent into militarism began not with Hirohito but with bureaucrats, officers, and citizens who pre conformed to what they imagined the state desired.
Timothy Snyder’s first three lessons…do not obey in advance, defend institutions, beware the one party state…describe precisely this dynamic. The Kodoha and Toseiha factions did not seize power from a strong civilian government; they filled a vacuum created by anticipatory obedience and institutional timidity.
The United States today faces a similar softening of institutional muscle: agencies that bend toward perceived political winds, citizens who internalize the logic of inevitability, and political actors who treat pluralism as optional, rather than foundational.
Wonderful writing!
I’m in alignment with you Bryan. WRT drug boat attacks, I written Sen. McCormick, the junior senator from Pennsylvania and a West Point grad, asking for his opinion of the legality of the drone strikes on drug boats. I pointed specifically to Andy McCarthy’s articles in the National Review arguing these attacks were illegal. I also asked him why the Pentagon and the White House have failed to present their legal arguments for the legality of those strikes. Sen. McCormick’s only response was simply that he considered it within the President’s Article II authority. That seems a huge stretch to me.
I also wrote him saying the Congress should pass legislation authorizing the President’s Iran policies. No response to this.
I have to wonder about his commitment West Point’s motto “Duty, Honor, Country”.
Regarding Iran: Matters of war, particularly before the first act, can be murky and hard to see clearly as was Pearl Harbor after we cut of sales of scrap metal and oil to Japan and before the attack. Similarly with Iran; would the cautionary waiting route lead us to a mushroom cloud? Who knows, but I couldn't stand the idea of the army of righteous legistators promising to 'make sure' that "it will never happen again." That just isnt good enough.
Then we have starkly different views of the requirements of our Constitution.
Perhaps, but until we know whether some disaffected American millionaire living in China is sending money to buy bricks to throw at policemen and until we know whether the tsunami of leftist sentiment flooding the internet and driving sympathetic legislators in their policy making decisions, originates with Americans or alien bots or other sources anathematic to the good order of our culture and our legal system, we have an executive operating with one hand tied behind his back in a world climate that requires at least both hands.
You do know that it's not leftist sentiment driving Congress right? That Congress is controlled by the Republican party and they're not making "leftist" decisions?
I could say that this is a slippery comment and stop there. The leftist 'decisions' are not legistation, but by only the thinnest of margins and AOC and the squad, Jaime Raskin and others desperate to add population to SCOTUS and further erase congressions rules of order are simply liberal American politicians? Ok then.
Les,
I have an urge to respond to you...but realize it serves no purpose. But you may want to know that tickets for the UFC gig can be bought with Trump coins for a discount.
I am sad that what should be a grand celebration of the 250th anniversary of our nation has ended up being turned into a bunch of silly things by the president and his inherently polarizing nature.
Your post summarizes the feelings of many of us.
Bread and Circuses indeed — I applaud your continued efforts to surface the issue of political party allegiance — Über alles — coupled with equal levels of apathy at the socioeconomic course of our great Republic. If only there were examples in recorded history to reflect upon, great cognitive extrapolation or leaps of imagination not necessary…
Everyone should reread the Declaration of Independence and ponder upon the wisdom, temerity, and conviction necessary to incite, instill, AND maintain a free and productive society!
Godspeed and Good Hunting, Always
We said young one!
Indeed.
On point
I could make a case that Alvin Holsey did depart due to the illegal strikes against the small boats. He is a good man so I was not surprised. But there are way too many Naval Officers, who know better, who are executing these illegal strikes. Army, Air Force officers, fine, they don’t know the (lower case) law of the sea. But the Naval Officers being involved is depressing.
You could make the case, but Alvin Holsey hasnt.
Concur.
NO reasonable threat from Iran? I believe you've lost your mind!
Had an imminent threat existed, the President would be on solid ground. But no such threat existed. Though my choice of words was poor.
POTUS and the Intelligence Community have access to GEOINT and other Multi-INT data and information to make decisions on what is or is not an eminent threat - the press, congress and you and I DO NOT - you are entitled to your opinion but come on, when you were a commander, how did you like monday morning QB’s critiquing your command decisions?! The American people elected POTUS- we are at war - please knock off the Iranian propaganda
Director Gabbard confirmed there was no imminent threat, so you know. As did her predecessors...and our intelligence subelements.
One of the duties of an informed citizenry is to question political leadership. If there were an imminent threat--especially given the heat the President has taken--we would have heard about it. Such was NEVER a feature of their backstory. They have NEVER made an imminent threat argument, You don't get to say "we are at war" as if that obligates me to support a reckless decision not validated by the legislative branch representing the American people. My propaganda, such as it is, is distinctly American.
Absolutely agree on the duties of an informed citizenry! The legislature abrogated their responsibility to declare war DECADES ago - our military is at war - that obligates citizens to stay informed - but repeating IRGC spokesmen's talking points is spreading propaganda! Your argument that if there really was an imminent threat we never would of heard about it doesn't make sense, except to use your logic, we never heard about it! Gabbard stated that the determination of "imminence" is made by the President, not intelligence agencies. She is absolutely CORRECT!
Nothing has been presented to Congress in closed session that suggested an imminent threat to the U.S. and our vital national interests. If the Administration had done so, in closed session, those highly classified and compartmented data would not have been leaked but would have justified either a declaration of war or, at least, an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress would have almost immediately approved.
That way, our war against Iran would comply with our Constitutional procedures.
That the President did not do this shows his disrespect and disregard for our Constitution.
Would not have been leaked? In an election year? In this day and age? You are dreaming!!
Gospodin McGregor, the allegations you use are not intemperate or personally insulting, and I thank you for that.
I worked with TS/SCI data for 21 years on a daily basis. I never testified before a Congressional committee, but I know that some of the information I authored was presented to appropriate committees, which consisted of Republican and Democratic Party officials. My statement, that I am unaware of any leaks of classified or compartmented data by members of the House or Senate Armed Services of Intelligence committees, is base on my knowledge, not my dreams.
When I dream, I sometimes dream that our nation never tore itself apart in a Civil War, or a Great Depression, or two World Wars, or Vietnam, or Jim Crow, or lynchings. I often dream that the love of my life had not been killed in a automotive accident during her Navy tour.
But, dreams are dreams, regardless of one's political associations.
I too worked for an Intel agency for 14 years and deployed with mission partners to OEF & OIF (and served in uniform for 24)- the Intel community leaks like a sieve - saw it first hand - in and out if uniform - in DC, IRQ and AFG!
Thank you for your service and so sorry for your lost loved one
Just to name two leaks:
Pentagon Papers (1971): While initiated by the RAND Corporation, this monumental leak of classified U.S. military operations deeply involved the Armed Services Committees. The documents revealed that the Johnson administration had systematically misled Congress and the public, prompting a series of hearings and investigations to uncover the full extent of the deception
Global Intel Platform Leaks (2023): Dozens of pages of highly sensitive, classified Department of Defense and intelligence documents detailing war strategies and U.S. assessments regarding the conflict in Ukraine were leaked onto a gaming platform. While the leak originated elsewhere, the leadership of the House Armed Services Committee publicly stepped in, issuing a letter demanding accountability and answers from the Pentagon regarding the unauthorized disclosures.
Politicians can't keep secrets - if you or I had leaked, we would be in Ft Leavenworth NOT on Sunday talk shows
After "watching" the Iranians for 14 years and seeing first-hand their capabilities in Iraq - there is no doubt in my mind that an imminent threat has existed for a LONG time - maybe not an ICBM nuke but more likely a dirty bomb detonated INSIDE the US.
Could POTUS have done something to inform Congress before the first strike - absolutely- but that was his call
The President's "Article II powers include authority not only to order the use of military force to defend the United States and U.S. persons against actual or anticipated attacks, but also to advance other important national interests. Presidents of both parties have deployed U.S. forces and ordered the use of military force, without congressional authorization, on numerous occasions.
In addition to the powers granted to the president in Article II, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to “declare War.” But this authority has never been interpreted—by either Congress or the executive branch—to require congressional authorization for every military action that the president could initiate."
Ref: https://www.cfr.org/articles/does-trump-have-authority-strike-iran
Congress has not acted to limit his authority (yet) - lets pray a "deal" gets done BEFORE anymore US servicemen lose their lives!!
That is because if if had been presented before hand it would have been leaked to the press & Iranians - you are dreaming to think otherwise!!
Congress HAS received numerous classified briefings since the war started!! Unless you’ve seen them, you don't know what has/has not been briefed!
Mr. McGregor, I am unaware of any instance, alleged or documented, of leaks of classified, compartmented data by bipartisan members of the House and Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees who are cleared to review such data.
No, I don't know - and neither could nor should I know - what information the Administration delivered to Congress AFTER it started the Iran war.
I know that the Administration did not seek from Congress either a declaration of war or, at least, an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, prior to starting this war.
Thank you for your powerful statement.
Amen!
Americans have allowed this all to hsppen. Now stop it before too late. .