Here’s are some Links to the YouTube Audio so You can hear EXACTLY what Mark Levin says about the War Power Act in HIS OWN WORDS. Then Decide Who is Right and Who is Wrong on the issue.
I Agree with Mark Levin when He talks about IF a War Needs to be Declared or Not. Decide for Yourself and hear what Mark has to say about it. Mark Levin "There has been some discussion about the war powers act." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OugMoPtu1M
Mark Levin's Lesson on the 1973 War Powers Resolution I Agree with Him on this Subject and think You should listen with an Open Mind about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmX41OX53lI
Mark Levin "One more time Declaration of War." Mark Clears the Air and Finally Answers Critics about Declaration of War issues. This is a Very GREAT Video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1qfiNO3WsM&feature=relmfu
Mark Levin then also Pointed out a Few Interesting and Good Discussions on His Facebook and Twitter Social Networking Sites on the War Power Act. Please do take the time to read them over before making a final decision about which side You believe is more accurate or Constitutionally Correct.
Andrew McCarthy and Bill Burck of National Review Online seem to Agree with Mark Levin’s Point of View. What do You think?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262940/we-do-declare-kathryn-jean-lopez?page=1
Then Mark Levin Released this Note on His Facebook and Twitter Social Networking Sites on Monday, March 28, 2011 at 5:08am Entitled “So much educating to do, so little time to do it.”
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/notes/mark-levin/so-much-educating-to-do-so-little-time-to-do-it/10150116640995946
Mark Levin Clearly Explains Further His Stated Position and it is Correct and Accurate!
“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.)”
This still has Not Satisfied or Validated Mark Levin’s Critics so he went on to Expose some of the Main “Outliers” for Who they are and what their Agenda could be in this Post on on Monday, March 28, 2011 at 4:27am Properly Entitled “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!”
“As you can see, this website attacks most conservatives - Here Meese, Scalia, Thomas, and even the Koch brothers (who are actually libertarians) in a single post. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/76465.html
Here John Bolton is accused of being a neo-conservative. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/31901.html Here they approvingly post a piece entitled Ronald Reagan, Warmonger. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html
Here they are taking on drunk driving laws. http://twitter.com/TheKingDude/status/15781636364828672
Here's a pearl about Rush accompanied with someone's history lesson. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/graham-d1.1.1.html
Here Tom Sowell is said not to live up to standard. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/bothwell5.html
This, after only 10 minutes of painfully going through that site.
This is who Professor Thomas Woods is aligned with. It is a small cabal of kooks who promote a form of neo-anarchism claiming it as constitutional originalism. Wrong, wrong, wrong.”
Mark Levin is also back up again by other Legitimate and Established Conservative Sources like Dan Riehl of Rieho World View when he wrote this Article over this “Controversy” on Tuesday, March 29th, 2011 Entitled “LCR's Thomas Woods Has A Charlie Sheen Woody But, Alas, No Goddesses”
In this Article Dan Riehl Writes:
“Poor Thomas Woods, this posting of his at LCR might explain how he went from being educated at Harvard (B.A.) and Columbia (Ph.D) to holding court at a junior college.
UPDATE: Another friend writes, “Just finished an attempt at offering Levin a debate against you regarding war powers. I am now blocked from the page. What a bunch of pathetic 3 year olds. Tom Woods=WINNING!”
There's nothing wrong with junior colleges per se - I attended one before moving on; however, they can become home to a certain class of would be academic that prefers circle jerks, to intelligent discourse. And they do seem to have quite a circle jerk going on just now over at this Lew Rockwell's place, when not defending "young radio star with the huge websites," Alex Jones. Starting to get the picture of what these mopes are all about? - to the extent even they know, of course. Oh well, what would the Right be without its own speshul version of Looney Tunes to occasionally entertain us out here?
A friend writes: “Levin is in full ‘damage-control’ mode on Facebook! He’s deleting every post about you as fast as he can!” That includes quotations about war powers from such left-wing subversives as George Washington. (Yes, his followers, who were not allowed to see my challenge to Levin, think I must be on the Left.)
To follow up on something from Mark Levin, this Woods does seem to have a knack for embarassing himself - including instances of significant intellectual dishonesty.
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.
But then, what would one expect from a cartoon, or perhaps a caricature? The debate is over the Constitution and the War Powers Act. Redstate split the baby and just linked to Levin without mentioning Woods to make it clear where they stood. But even that didn't go un-noticed over at LCR. Disagree with them and you're nothing but a warmongering neo-con. Interesting how times have changed. At least they aren't still just calling everyone a Jew, or some such, while accusing you of both running and destroying America.
Or, perhaps it's the Confederacy they actually still embrace.
Would Sarkozy Have Supported the Confederacy? “Peaceful Southern citizens who are only asking to choose their own destiny are in danger of dying,” French president Sarkozy said. Oh, sorry, he actually said “Libyan citizens.”
It's hard to tell with this group. You can have a look by scrolling if you wish. Woods claims he sent Levin home crying; others chime in that John Yoo and the Claremont Institute - just so many more neo-cons; visit "the 51st state, or new Iowa - Israel like Huckabee or Palin and you're on haj - oh, they are clever this group. The Koch brothers? Just more neo-cons sneaking around under their beds, of course. But no matter, Woods and his mouth-foamed friends are #Winning because they told us so.
Sorry for the diversion from more serious things. But every couple years, or so, one gets an urge to peel the scab off the festering sore of this, or that wing of politics other than the hard Left and take a look at the pus. Chalk it up as a human frailty. Just don't look too long, diseased portions of anything can make one rather sick.”
And Here’s How I Feel about the Critics of Mark
“Mark Levin is a Busy Man in the FIGHT Against TYRANNY. He's TOO Busy ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING FIGHTING BACK AGAINST TYRANNY instead of sitting on the Sidelines taking Potshots at a Respected Conservative Talk Radio Show. That was My Point from above. The Judge, Ron Paul and Tom Woods are NOT doing ANYTHING Effective at Combating Tyranny but MARK LEVIN IS!! His Landmark Legal Foundation is Fighting the NEA: http://www.landmarklegal.org/DesktopDefault.aspx The Same Landmark Legal Foundation is in the Fight Against ObamaCare that is Currently Winning & on it's way to circuit Court on appeal: http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark%20Legal%20-%20Brief%20Filed.pdf
And Mark Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation is also doing it's BEST to Help & Assist AZ in it's Fight to Enforce SB1070 in which Eric Holder is Still doing HIS Absolute Best to Stop it: http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/AmicusBrief_PI_Appeal.pdf
My Point again IS Mark Levin is NOT just Style OVER Substance. Mark's NOT All Talk with NO Action. Mark Levin Walks the Walk and Talks the Talk.”
Furthermore:
The Judge, Mike Church, Ron Paul and Tom Woods are NOT a Better or More Accurate Authority on the Constitution or the Supreme Court than Mark Levin. Not even Close. Mark Levin has Written TWO Best Selling Books on the Supreme Court and the Constitution. Maybe You've ...heard of them? MEN IN BLACK and LBERTY AND TYRANNY? Sound Familiar? Ring any Bells? Mark Levin is a Constitutional lawyer, president of the the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington D.C. AND Also, the former Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan Administration. Beginning in 1981, Mark R. Levin served as advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet, eventually becoming Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; Levin also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, and Deputy Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Mark Levin's Show is Aired Daily (Monday through Friday) with over 8.5 Million Loyal Listeners.
My Point is The Judge, Mike Church, Ron Paul and Tom Woods has Nothing on Mark Levin. They're NOT in the Same League. The Critics do NOT have the Conservative background or Impact that Mark Levin does. Not to mention, Mark Levin is NOT just Talk but He also is Helping AZ fight Eric Holder off over SB1070, Helping Fight back Against ObamaCare and taking on the NEA. Not to mention all of the "Mark Levin Surges" He's done on His Radio Show which have helped Raise Awareness on Important issues when it was Neccessary and Needed. Mark Levin is a Patriot and Should Not be Attacked or Critisized by the likes of Judge Napolitano, Mike Church, Ron Paul and Thomas Woods.
What have these Critics EVER Done anywhere Near those Accomplishments?
THEY ARE NOT RIGHT on this Issue!
THEY ARE WRONG. Sorry!
Mark Levin Knows His Stuff and He's RIGHT on this Issue. Deal with it!
The Judge, Mike Church, Ron Paul and Tom Woods are WRONG and You're Not going to change My Mind about it. I've read BOTH SIDES of the issue and I SIDE WITH MARK LEVIN! Case Closed!”
