War and Honesty: The Debate on U.S. Aid to Ukraine. Andrew Napolitano

Can the president fight any war he wishes? Can Congress fund any war it chooses? Are there constitutional, legal and moral requirements that must first be met before war is waged? Can the president and Congress dupe the public?

These questions should be central to the debate over the U.S. involvement in Ukraine. What debate? The media are mouthing what the CIA is telling them, and only a few websites and podcasts — my own, “Judging Freedom” on You Tube, among them — are challenging the government’s reckless, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional war.

All power in the federal government comes from the Constitution and from no other source. Congress, however, has managed to extend its reach beyond the confines of the Constitution domestically by spending money in areas that it cannot regulate and purchasing compliance from the states by bribery.

Examples of this are the numerical minimum blood alcohol content to trigger DWI arrests, and maximum speed limits. In both instances, Congress offered money to the states to pave highways provided they lower both numbers, and the cash-strapped states accepted the money along with congressional strings. These are bribes from the criminal consequences of which Congress has exempted itself.

The same takes place in foreign policy. Congress cannot legally declare war on Russia, since there is no militarily grounded reason for doing so. Russia poses no threat to American national security. Moreover, the U.S. has no treaty with Ukraine that triggers an American military defense. But Congress spends money on the war in Ukraine nevertheless.