Disappointing nonsense at LewRockwell.com

At Last!! by Paul Hein:
"The news media are already bringing us news of candidates for president in the election of 2008. Modesty forbade my announcing my candidacy first, but now that there are already hats in the ring, I’ll put an end to the suspense that was torturing so many of you and announce that I will once again run for the presidency. (Actually, it will be more of a stroll than a run). Yes, I’m sure you’re relieved. This is your chance to join that mini-multitude (fifteen, actually) who voted for me last time."

I occasionally take a look at the offerings on LewRockwell.com and usually find intelligent commentary from a libertarian and constitutionalist perspective, even when I may not agree in all particulars. Imagine my disappointment when an online acquaintance circularized this particular offering from a Dr. Paul Hein, previously unknown to me.

Below are somr quotes from the Hein piece and my my - dare I say? - devastating comments.

"I will be Commander in Chief, but the only command I am likely to issue will be to bring American troops back home where they belong."

There are other duties as commander-in-chief, such as recommending the promotion of officers and the appointment of senior commanders and civilian officials of the defense establishment. Also, proposing the defense budget which involves making choices about what missions are contemplated and the resources needed to carry them out. These duties require a president's attention in peacetime as well as war - unless one is among those libertarian idealists who thinks if we abolish our army no one will attack us.

"I shall make very few Treaties, since they supersede the Constitution that I am bound to uphold."

Despite the modern fascination with so-called executive agreements which some court rulings have held to be equivalent to treaties, only the US Senate can "make" a treaty operative, the president only negotiates and proposes them. Also, although I understand the concern that motivated the late Sen. John Bricker (R-OH) to propose his amendment to make it clearer that treaties are subordinate to the Constitution, it is clear from the nature of the Constitution as a limited delegation of authority from the States to the national government that the subject matter of treaties is limited to the subject matter jurisdiction of the national government as spelled out in the Constitution itself.

"I will fill vacancies in Congress that occur during recesses;"

The president has no authority to appoint members of Congress under any circumstances.

"Rarely, I might convene both houses, or, adjourn them."

Those better be rare occurrences as the president has no power to compel the convening or adjournment of Congress, nor is his consent required for their convening or adjournment.

"There is nothing in the constitutional list of presidential duties that directly involves foreign policy,"

That is, unless you consider negotiating treaties, appointing our ambassadors and consuls, receiving foreign ambassadors and trying to keep us out of wars we can avoid and winning those we can't.

There's lots more to criticize, like the wholly insane notion that any good would come of a write-in campaign for president which shows ignorance of the constitutional provisions regarding the electoral college. Without a certified slate of presidential electors to vote for in each state, such votes would simply be wasted. Besides, as far as I can remember there have only been two write-in winners for US Senate seats and both in small states, Nebraska (maybe) and South Carolina (Strom Thurmond - who had already been elected state-wide as Governor and just narrowly lost the Democrat primary for senator that year); two write-in winners of close to 5,000 elections for US Senator. Imagine how much harder it would be to prevail as a write-in for president of the whole country.

One of the things I frequently find myself doing in my private correspondence, and occasionally her in this space, is disabusing well-meaning people of the notion that just because they want a certain policy to prevail it must be a constitutional imperative. The Constitution is not some religious talisman, just a very good attempt to answer the question - how shall we govern ourselves in a small part of the powers exercised by government.