Isn't it unconstitutional for the President to involve us in foreign wars? The Constitution vests the warmaking power entirely in Congress. All sorts of things are denounced as unconstitutional, usually on good grounds. We should not avoid arguments of this type, which are often of some use in blocking radical left judges from reading their own agenda into the Constitution. As the great Murray Rothbard noted, for example, "In my opinion, the Jeffersonian strict construction theory of the 'necessary and proper' clause is obviously the meaning most appropriate to the text: 'necessary' always means, in logical discourse, those steps that are truly essential and not just what some congressmen think to be conducive to the final result."

But ultimately, the Constitution is a weak reed. As Rothbard also noted in the posthumously published Volume 5 of Conceived in Liberty, the Constitution was a triumph for those who wanted a large central government. It was a blow to those who believed in states' rights and civil liberties. Here is what Rothbard says: "The Constitution was unquestionably a high-nationalist document, creating what Madison once referred to as a 'high mounted government.' Not only were the essential lines of the nationalistic Virginia Plan Report carried out in the Constitution, but the later changes made were preponderantly in a nationalist direction. Of the fundamental changes, only the equality of states in the Senate and their election by state legislatures, the former bitterly protested by the determined large state nationalists, was a concession to the opposition. In contrast, on the nationalist side congressional selection of the president was changed to chosen by popular election, admission of new states was made purely arbitrary, and the amendment power was transferred from the states to the Congress. While it is true that the general congressional veto over state laws and the vague broad grant of powers in the original Virginia Plan were whittled down to a list of enumerated powers, enough loopholes existed in the enumerated list: the national supremacy clause; the dominance of the federal judiciary; the virtually unlimited power to tax, raise armies and navies, make war, and regulate commerce; the necessary and proper clause; and the powerful general welfare loophole; all allowed the virtually absolute supremacy of the central government. While libertarian restraints were placed on state powers, no bill of rights existed to check the federal government. And slavery, albeit not explicitly named in the document, was cemented into American society by the nationalists' twenty-year guarantee of the slave trade, in the three-fifths clause 'representing' slaves in Congress, and in the compulsory fugitive slave clause. The northern nationalists were willing, if shamefacedly, to agree in exchange for the right to regulate commerce and thus grant themselves commercial privileges, while the southern nationalists were willing to concede regulation of commerce in confident expectation of an early slave-state preponderance in Congress for the South and Southwest. Both wings of nationalists looked forward to a central government that could pursue an aggressive foreign policy, either on behalf of commercial interests to pry open the West Indies trade, or on behalf of interests in the western lands to push Britain out of the Northwest or Spain out of the southwestern Mississippi."