Ep. 1248: Listen to Calhoun on Foreign Policy

0:00Ever seen a musical so good, you didn't want it to end like you could live inside it forever. Then you're going to love Schmiggadun. Get your one-way ticket to Broadway musical paradise! Have you ever felt trapped at a musical like you literally couldn't escape? Then you'll hate to miss Schmiggadun because you'll never want to leave and you can't. But the important thing is you'll never want to. Get tickets at SchmiggadunBroadway.com You've been there. Settling in for an evening of TV only to waste half the night scrolling. Enter Fire TV. Entertainment with zero effort required. Fire TV serves up personalized recommendations from across all your apps. Not sure what to watch? Just tell Alexa Plus what you're in the mood for and she'll pull up the perfect recommendation. Problem solved. Stop the scroll, start the show. Find what you're looking for with Fire TV. Subscriptions may be required.

1:00A ClanahanAcademy.com is your gateway to a real history education. Go to McClanahanAcademy.com. Use the coupon code podcast and take 25% off every class every day at McClanahanAcademy. Get a real history education. I'll see you in class. If you like this podcast and you want it without advertisements, head over to patreon.com and become a member of the Brian McClanahan show for 10 bucks a month. You get all the podcast ad free including video and you also get a special Q&A podcast. I'm only going to answer your questions, your listener generated episodes through those Q&A. So head over to patreon.com, get this podcast ad free. No ads, not even things like this. And you really do help support the Brian McClanahan show with really cool stuff on the back end. Do you want a free ebook? Well, head over to BrianMcClanahan.com. Give me an email address and I'll give you a free ebook for gotten founders just for signing up. You'll get on my email list.

2:00You get great coupons and other things. It's a fantastic way for me to keep in touch with you. And again, you get a free ebook. I'll see you there. It's John C. Calhoun's birthday. And what would he say about current American foreign policy? We'll talk about that on this episode of the Brian McClanahan show. It's time to think locally and act locally. Welcome to the Brian McClanahan show. Welcome back to the Brian McClanahan show. Glad to be back on the program. Very glad to be here. All right. Didn't have a podcast yesterday and coming to you late on Wednesday. I've got a lot of things going on. So the podcast has been put on the back burner just a little bit. Mike at three episodes this week. Maybe only two. We'll see. But I wanted to talk about John C. Calhoun today. It is March 18th. John C. Calhoun's birthday as I'm recording this. And of course, as I'm publishing this, it is his birthday.

3:03And we would do well. Remember Calhoun in 2026. Now, I know that Calhoun is one of the great triumvirate of the evil boogie man in American history. You've got Jefferson Davis, John C. Calhoun and George Wallace. But John C. Calhoun is still relevant in 2026 without a doubt. And there's a variety of reasons for that. Of course, we could talk about federalism. We could talk about state powers. We could talk about the powers of the central government, the unconstitutional powers of the central government. We can talk about his opposition to executive overreach. We could talk about all kinds of things with Calhoun. But what we are going to talk about today is foreign policy. Now, we could go back into the founding period and look at Washington's farewell address, Jefferson's first inaugural address. And of course, that would set the stage for many of the presidents that followed. And, you know, as I said before, a force McDonald be grudgingly accepted that Thomas Jefferson had a larger impact on the future of the presidency than George Washington in many ways.

4:04We could talk about John Quincy Adams in his speech on foreign policy in 1821, which of course ran Paul cited when he made a statement against Trump's invasion of Iran or attacks on Iran. We haven't invaded yet. It's probably going to happen. There's already some rumblings that there's going to be boots on the ground. As I said from the beginning of this, this is not going to go well. Particularly in election year, I think Trump, again, as I went over his state of the union address and I said, look, this is a home run. Unless we go to war with Iran. And that's exactly what's happened. So, you know, that John Quincy Adams as Secretary of State was pretty good. He said some things that were not so good, distortion of American history. Later on, 18 years later, he's really saying some stupid things by the 1830s. But regardless, this was the standard American foreign policy,

5:08non-intervention, and of course, suspicion of executive overreach when it came to foreign policy. That's something that we miss a lot. The president having unilateral war-making powers. It was never intended to be that way. It doesn't matter which president we're talking about. And people, of course, can say that I'm being, you know, anti-Trump. I'm not being anti-Trump at all in this, just as Trump is a person. But Trump's use of unilateral power is unconstitutional. I would say the same thing about Joe Biden, and I did. I would say the same thing about Barack Obama, and I did. We're leaving today and entering a world of Mickey Mouse waving, Princess Meeting and Greetings. Lightsaber Clashing! The Twilight Zone Tower of terror dropping! Banshee flying! Space Mountain launching! Galaxy rewinding! What's the one that looks galaxy rewinding? Fireworks igniting! World of other worlds, for whatever you love. Infinite worlds await at the most magical place on Earth,

6:11Walt Disney World Resort. When you want your spring break to feel like... ...and your kids pool day to feel like... ...and your hotel bed to feel like... ...ooh, and room service to feel like... ...because at Hilton, hospitality feels like... ...a band is ready. Would you like fresh towels? It matters where you stay. Book now at hilton.com. Hilton, for this day. I would say the same thing about Donald Trump first... ...first go around, and I did. Now the show started in 2016, so right at the tail end of Obama's... ...two terms in office. But even before I had this show, I was making statements critical of Barack Obama. I would say the same thing about George W. Bush, and I did. So, you know, I've been doing this in one way or no, they're not this podcast, but commenting on politics for over 20 years now,

7:13and I've said the same thing. Anytime you have presidents abusing their power, abusing their constitutional authority, it's dangerous for the future of the United States. It doesn't matter if it's an R or D in office, and it doesn't matter if you say, these people did it so what, that's a weak argument. Yeah, that's right, they did it. It was unconstitutional then too. Now, I know that the right, and this is an interesting conversation to have. The right is simply embrace the left's playbook, and we're just going to play by the left's rules. We're going to do whatever the left does. We're going to use the apparatus they've put in place, and we're going to abuse them. Well, the right can't stay in power forever, and the left is more vindictive. Trust me, the left is the most violent political faction in the history of the world. It's in civilization in particular. And so when they come back into power, it's not going to be good for the right. It isn't. The right should have gotten into power and torn everything down to its studs. I mean, bare bones, ripped it apart, and then said there's going to be,

8:14you shall not pass, you cannot do this stuff anymore. And at that point, the left would have been powerless had they come back in. And I think at one level, the argument was, well, Trump can come in and do all these things, and then we can tear it down. It's just not going to get torn down. So once you have that ring of power, I mean, it's infectious. It's a disease. You don't want to give it up. And you're not going to tear it down because, well, maybe we can win again. Maybe we can get 20, 28, and we can keep doing this. So that's the real concern I have about any executive government, whether it's in domestic policy, president should have very little control over that at all, or foreign policy with the president acting unilaterally. And again, the founding generation was clear about this. The president couldn't act unilaterally when it came to war-making. And as I've talked about on the show, Jefferson, the example of the Barbary Pirates, has no example because he waited for Congress to act. He simply protected American commerce,

9:16and then waited for Congress to act on any further use of the military. That's not what Trump is doing. There's no parallel. There's no comparison. So I want to talk about Calhoun, because he said some really interesting things on foreign policy during the Mexican War, which was the first, in many ways, foray of the United States into a foreign adventurism, the War of 1812 was a defensive war. We could talk about New Englanders and what they said about that. And certainly they thought the United States was engaging a little bit of foreign adventurism there. We were trying to capture Canada, but regardless, the war with Mexico was simply about territory. I mean, Polk won in California. He couldn't buy it. He sent commissioners there to buy it. Mexico wouldn't budge. And so he said, fine, I'll just take it. And that's exactly what happened. And of course, we also acquired a huge chunk of territory in the Southwestern United States, which the organization of that territory would then lead to bigger political problems

10:17in the United States. And this is why Calhoun didn't want it. He could see the writing on the wall. There was also the crusade for all of Mexico. We'll just take the whole country, which thankfully that didn't happen either. That would have been a disaster for the United States. You absorb a huge swath of territory and a large population, which was politically, culturally, in many ways, religiously different from the United States. That would have been tough to integrate. The Austrians tried this with the Austro-Hungarian Empire didn't work out too well. And anytime you have a multinational empire, it's very difficult to keep it together long term. And so thankfully, Mexico was not absorbed into the United States. But Calhoun was against that too. You certainly had people in the Democratic Party that wanted it. And so Calhoun said a lot about the Mexican War. Now, a recent book, there's been a couple of books on this. There's a book by Matthew Carp,

11:17that gets into American foreign policy in the 1840s, particularly in the war with Mexico. And he makes the case that Calhoun was hypocritical. That he really wanted the war with Mexico, but publicly he said not, but privately he was all for it. I'm going to read you some information, private letters, where he doesn't say that at all. You've got, of course, this Bob Elder book on Calhoun, which I think is a little more accurate, more accurate with Calhoun in the war. Calhoun certainly didn't want the war. He didn't want, he thought that the presidency was overreaching, was extending its authority too far. And so at that point, he thought that this was going to be dangerous for the United States long term. He wasn't necessarily in line with James K. Polk, even though Polk was also a Democrat. Calhoun could see the problems that this war would produce. But again, Polk won in California. He wanted that empire on the Pacific. There's a really good book about American foreign policy hearings. It's an old book,

12:17but it's very good. Norman Grabner's empire on the Pacific. I'd recommend you get that. If you're interested in this period. Also, David Pledcher's diplomacy of annexation, it's very good. Those are, again, both older books, but just excellent academic works. And of course, Grabner is pointing out that the ultimate goal for Polk, no matter what, was always California. It was it. Polk had, Polk was California dreaming, and he was going to get California in one way or another. He was either going to buy it or take it. We ended up taking it. Now, of course, interestingly enough, California has a short-lived independence period, the Bare Flag Republic, which the United States crushes. But this is why when people in California are talking about California's secession, there's already been an instance in California where California was independent. And so perhaps that would be something that could be revisited in the future. This is where I said John Quincy Adams said

13:18some really stupid things. One of those was on secession. There'll be a lecture on this. I'm actually producing that this weekend, as I'm recording this in a conference. So I'll talk about John Quincy Adams, and that'll be on YouTube at some point. So if you want to check that out. But let me get into the quotes from Calhoun, because they're really good. And I'm reading these from Clyde Wilson's The Essential Calhoun. Because there's so many, if you want to get that book too, you can get that second hand. It's not in print anymore, but The Essential Calhoun. And there's just some really good stuff here when it comes to what Calhoun thought about the war, what he thought about executive power, what he thought about imperialism, because he touches on that a little bit. So I'm just going to read a number of these and then comment on them. He's writing a private letter to his son, Andrew P. Calhoun, on May 14th, 1846. He says, never was so mementos a measure adopted

14:19with so much precipitancy, so little thought, or forced through by such objectionable means. And again, this is leading up to the Mexican War. So little thought, forced through with so objectionable, Calhoun was completely against this process. May 28th, he's writing to his son-in-law, Thomas G. Clemson. He says, there is no country, not even France, in which there is a stronger inclination to war. And of course, he's talking about the United States and think about that. What we've just seen. There's no country, not even France, with a stronger inclination to war. Americans love to go to war. We love it. I mean, look at the right's reaction once Iran was bombed. I mean, how many people went on social media and just completely lost their minds, how great this was. This is fantastic. We're doing all these great things. And it doesn't matter if it was Iran, or if it was Iraq, or if it was take your pick of any country, Venezuela, it doesn't matter.

15:19Once the United States starts flinging missiles around, people love it. And you got, you know, the commercials, the videos made, all the raw, raw stuff, the jingoism, all these things. People love this stuff. They love to go to war in the United States. And Calhoun is saying in 1846, well, there's no country, but France, it likes it as much. Not even France, really. He says, our people are like a young man of 18, full of health and vigor and dispose for adventure of any description. But without wisdom or experience to guide him, we're 18 years all worry, full of health and vigor and we're ready to go fight. But no wisdom or experience. Now, here we are in 2026. I mean, Calhoun is writing this in 1846. The United States hasn't even been around 100 years yet. So you can maybe understand that there was a little bit of, you know, kind of youthful vigor there to go to war and prove you're the best. Here we are though,

16:19nearly 200 years later, 180 years later, and we're still acting the same way without any wisdom or experience. It seems like we just keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, particularly in the last half of the 20th century. And everyone of course looks back to World War II, World War I, the United States winning and kicked everybody's butt and we won. And of course, they look back to, you know, certain military operations in the last, you know, 50, 60, 70 years. The United States has done well, but not as successfully. And we don't seem to learn. For an adventurism is dangerous for the United States, both militarily and domestically, because we increase the debt. We spend a lot of money. American taxpayers are on the hook. It's a dangerous thing to do. And yet we don't learn. I remember, and I've said this on the show before, when I was an undergraduate, a friend of mine had a class with a leftist political science professor, and he used to argue about things. And this was back when I didn't really know much.

17:19And I remember this friend of mine saying, gosh, that guy is so stupid. He says, we haven't left a wartime footing since World War II. Can you believe that? Well, the leftist professor was right. We haven't. It doesn't make me a leftist. It doesn't make my friend a leftist, if you agreed. The leftist can say the right things at times. We have not left a wartime footing. Now, what he was angling for is that we need to cut, got into defense spending and spend more unconstitutionally on domestic spending. But regardless, he's correct. And in many ways, the domestic spending goes hand in hand with the defense spending. We haven't left a wartime footing since the 1930s, even before World War II, because Franklin Roosevelt went to war with poverty, right? With the depression. And we spent, like we were at war with something. So that's really the culprit. Unconstitutional government creates real problems for Americans in terms of spending and taxing and everything else. So that's the real issue. And we just seem to ignore it.

18:20But again, no wisdom or experience. And he says, and I fear that we shall share the fate, which usually be false, such. While I admire the spirit, I regret to see it misdirected. I regret to see it misdirected. He mires it. Look, yeah, we love to go out and we love to throw a few punches here and there. And you know, be young and aggressive at times. He admires that. But it's misdirected in his mind. We shouldn't be doing this for foreign adventurism. Then he writes, or he says in the Senate, this is a little longer quote. This again is, this is 1847, February 24th, 1847. We're already at war with Mexico. He says, every senator knows that I was opposed to the war. But none knows, but myself, the depth of that opposition. With my conceptions of its character and consequences, it was impossible for me to vote for it. When, accordingly, I was deserted by every friend

19:21on this side of the house, including my then-arble colleague among the rest, Mr. McDuffie, I was not shaken in the least degree in reference to my course. The passage of the act recognizing the war, I said to many of my friends that a deed had been done from which the country would not be able to recover for a long time, if ever. A deed had been done which the country would not be able to recover from. Now, is that true? Yes. The problems we face in 2026 are created by things that happened 180 years ago. Look, the Southwestern United States and while it's a nice place, beautiful place, what is the major problem there now? We're dealing with massive immigration issues in that part of the country because for the last 30 to 40 years, the people of Central and South America but also in Mexico have made it their goal to retake that area simply by populating it out. It's called the Reenconquista. They're open about it in some quarters. That creates the border crisis.

20:21That creates the immigration crisis that we see in that area of the country in Southern California, all along the Southwestern border. We're spending billions of dollars with a lot of fraud, I'm sure, to try to seal that up but it's not really working that well. I mean, some things are going trending in the right direction, but this has been a major issue for the United States for years. So, I mean, was it beneficial? Of course, you could also argue that that territory that was acquired led to the conflict in the 1860s because, well, they had to figure out how to organize this territory and that didn't go well. That was a constitutional crisis that ended in a big war. So, has it been beneficial for the United States ever recover or did it simply transform the United States from a federal Republican to an empire, which is exactly what it did? So, the war with Mexico was a long-term disaster. Yes, the United States acquired California.

21:22How is that working out for American politics now when California has become so dominant in American politics? For the rest of the country, do people love California? Or do they despise California? This episode is brought to you by Indeed. Stop leading around for the perfect candidate. Instead, use Indeed sponsor jobs to find the right people with the right skills fast. It's a simple way to make sure your listing is the first candidate see. According to Indeed data, sponsor jobs have four times more applicants than non-sponsored jobs. So, go build your dream team today, with Indeed. Get a $75 sponsor job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast, Terms and conditions apply. This episode is brought to you by Venmo. With the Venmo Devacard, a taco in one hand, and ordering a ride in the other, means you're stacking your rewards. Nice. Get up to 5% cash back with Venmo stash on your favorite brands when you pay with your Venmo Devacard. Pick a bundle with your go-to's and start earning cash back. Do more stash.

22:22Get more cash. Visit Venmo.com to learn more. Venmo stash bundle terms and exclusions apply. See terms at Venmo.ne slash stash terms. Max $100 cash back per month. He says, and added it has dropped a cert, a curtain between the present and the future, which to me is impenetrable. And for the first time since I have been in public life, I am unable to see the future. I also added that it has closed the first volume of our political history under the Constitution, and opened the second, and that no mortal could tell what would be written in it. The war with Mexico closed the first part of American history under the Constitution, and opened a new one. It created this imperial United States. That's Calhoun. Now, we could push that out 20 years and say, you know, maybe Lincoln, but acquiring this territory was opening the door to something else in American history. It was setting the stage for executive government.

23:24It was setting the stage for Abraham Lincoln. James K. Polk, and eventually at McClanahan Academy this year, in fact, I'll get to James K. Polk. We'll have a class just on Polk, and we'll get to some stuff like this. But Polk was transformation. A lot of people love Polk because he went in four years, study was going to do, and did what he did, and got out. And I've made that statement before too. He wasn't successful in everything. And this is, I mean, it's close to being true, but what he wanted to do was not necessarily good stuff. That's a problem. So it opened a curtain to a new United States. He says, these deep impressions were made upon my mind because I saw from the circumstances under which the war was made a total departure, from that course of policy which had governed the country, from the commencement of our government until that time. The war with Mexico was a total departure from the founding period.

24:25And what would he say about the war in Iran today, or the war in Iraq under George W. Bush, or all the other things that have happened in the last half of the 20th century? A total departure. Calhoun was right. He was right to any be right now. The war in Iran is a total departure from the founding period. Now, that period has been dead. I mean, Calhoun is saying it's dead now in 1846, but that's no badge of honor. It's not a good thing. And this too, under circumstances, calculated to lead to most disastrous consequences, disastrous consequences. Since then, less than a year has lapsed, but in that short period enough has already been developed to make what was then said looked like prophecy. He was right. He's really right now. But again, you can't use Calhoun. Why can't you use Calhoun? Because, you know, he's one of the great evil triumvirate

25:27in American history. But he's right. Just like, I mean, sometimes some of the things that people said that I don't like are right too. And you got to give him credit for when they were right. But Calhoun is pointing to 1846 as a transformational year. It's the year the United States went from a federal republic to an empire. Now, again, you could say, well, maybe it took another 15 years or so to make that really happen, but it was there. What's interesting about that, you know, I mentioned this before and I'll talk about it again when I get to the class on Polk, but actually on Taylor, Zachary Taylor. When Zachary Taylor wins the presidency and he and Polk are riding in a carriage to the inauguration, Polk is shocked because Taylor essentially says, let's look California to see it. It should just be its own country anyways. Polk almost lost his mind because that's what the whole war was about. And here's Zachary Taylor saying, yeah, maybe it's just California's just beyond its own. I mean, no big deal.

26:27No big deal. We should just let go. Lost his mind. So that's a great quote. Again, February 24, 1847. He also said this in the same speech. He said, we had not a particle of evidence then or even now that the Republic of Mexico had made war against the United States. Could you not say the same thing? Could you just replace Mexico with Iran? And now I know that people, again, no, no, no, no, McLennahan Iran is made war on the United States. They've declared war on us. They've engaged in war. They've done all these things. And I know, look, there's people on the right that just they, I mean, they want to die on that hill. But then there's also the other side of that and we say, okay, show me the deliberate attacks from the state of Iran. On the United States. And again, if the president is repelling a sudden attack, well, that's perfectly constitutional. No one would would blink an eye.

27:28But that's not what they're doing. This is preemptive. They've said it. And here is Calhoun in 1846 saying, showing where Mexico's attacked the United States. Now, of course, Polk's justification was that Zachary Taylor went into the disputed zone between Texas and Mexico, right? There was an area between the Rio Grande, the Wases River that he said was American territory. And that Taylor was attacked. But it was a threatening posture by the United States to send troops there. They knew full well what they were doing. And Mexico attacked. And of course, Polk's justification was American blood has been shed on American soil. Now, was that really American soil? Did Polk instigate this? Was he aggressive? That's the point. Was he? You can make an argument he was. But here's Calhoun saying, I can't find any evidence that Mexico has done anything to us. He says, indeed, we are in the anomalous condition of two countries being at war during and almost an entire year without either having declared it.

28:31Although the Constitution of both expressly provide that Congress shall declare war. So here we are. Now, of course. Congress can declare war and Congress had declared war. But here we are February 1847. And Calhoun is saying, I don't know what's going on here. I don't know what's happening with this war. Mexico doesn't seem right. I'm going to read you a couple of quotes from, again, another one for just 1847. And this is about limited war aims. Now, we've heard this before. This is the current situation, right? Should the Congress step in and limit the war aims of the Trump administration? That's the war power's resolution. This is what the Dopey Democrats tried to do. I mean, look, I don't like the Democrats. But at least they were doing the right thing here for the wrong reasons.

29:33They're doing it because of TDS. They're not doing it because the principal anti-war. They don't really care about that. The Democrats have shown in the last 70 years. They love going to war just as much as the Republicans. And they're fine with it if their guy does it. But this is about Trump. So this is why their efforts here are just completely ridiculous. But limiting the objectives of the war is the right thing to do. The Republicans should be doing this and then it would make more sense. This is what Calhoun said about that. Again, in 1847, this is December 20th, 1847. He says, sir, let any man look at the progress of this war. Let him consider how we got into it, not expecting to get into it at all. For certainly the executive officers expressed in the strongest manner, their conviction that there was not the slightest hazard of war at the time when our troops marched to the Rio Grande. What next? So, we weren't going to get more of this with Polk saying, we're going to march the troops to the Rio Grande and nothing's going to happen. He's saying, well, we weren't supposed to get into this thing.

30:37But now we're here. What next? After the war was commenced, we were told that the government was to conquer a peace. And what have we told sense? That we must carry on the war vigorously. Where is this to end? The whole progress towards the accomplishment of this avowed object of the president to conquer a peace has been marked by an earnest desire eagerly to prosecute the war, to go on and on, until we find ourselves where no man expected. So here we have a situation where this is limited. We're going to conquer the peace. And then the war just goes on and on. And this is exactly what people are predicting for a run. Well, we're going to end this thing in two weeks. Then it was four weeks. Now it might be eight weeks. Now then it might be, you know, four months, maybe six months. There's people that are already saying this is going to be till September. Well, that's going to be disastrous for Trump. Unless it wraps up at some point. I mean, you can almost see Trump walking aboard an aircraft carrier with a mission accomplished banner and nothing's really happened, pulling it in other George W. Bush moment.

31:39But this is where we're going to be. Right? We've got real difficulty in this situation with Iran and the straightover moves. That's going to drag the United States out for years, I think. I mean, just to try to control that. So what is the war end? It's not endings. It's not two weeks or four weeks. And this is when all they're all we can do. And this thing will end in two weeks. I don't even have four weeks. Trump has said two weeks, four weeks. It's not going to end anytime soon. And anyone that believe that got duped. And it's sad because a lot of the people, I just people I like that got duped. Seriously duped. And when troops and boots end up on the grounds, which is going to happen, they're all going to have to say, well, maybe I miscalculated here. Yes, you did. It's very easy to see what was going to happen. You got to read enough history. And even American history, I'm not talking about European history. Read American examples. Read Johnson Calhoun. I know it's hard for a lot of conservatives because they just want to say, oh, Calhoun and kind of like shield their eyes like, you know, it's, you know, Calhoun is there.

32:39These people are somehow vampires and Calhoun is the daylight. They can't get around it. Oh, and they're going to burning. But I mean, it's true. Right? It's difficult for him. I know. He says, sir, instead of being an abstraction, these resolutions are eminently practical. They're intended to present to the people of this country a finale, probably not anticipated, but which will come if, precautions are, be not taken. It is while the public mind is yet sound and while the Senate, as I believe, is prepared almost unanimously to vote against such an end of the war, that I wish this expression of opinion to be made. Sir, we begin now to find the misfortune of entering into war without a declaration of war, without a declaration setting forth to the people of the causes of the war, and one upon which they may hold the government responsible. We have gone into a war by a recognition of war and not a declaration, and hence the necessity for this resolution to negative result,

33:39which we do not contemplate. So what Calhoun is doing here is saying, look, we never really had an official declaration of war. We had a vote on the existence of war, and then Congress spent money on war, but we've never really had a declaration that defines the terms of the war and says this is exactly what's going to happen. So here Calhoun is saying that the war with Mexico is still kind of an undeclared war. It's a presidential war. An authorization was made, but not what he's saying is a true declaration, which defines the limits and says this is what we're going to do. This is the object of the war, and this is it. And so what he's trying to do, where he's trying to say we're going to limit the objectives of the war, is make it to where Congress has primacy in this conflict with Mexico, and that would be an important move. Now, imagine this now in the United States. If somehow Congress would grow spine and tell the Trump administration, this is what you're allowed to do, and this is what you're not allowed to do.

34:40Instead of just Trump saying, I'm going to do this, and I might do this, and maybe I'll do that. I mean, it's fascinating when reports are issued for people, reporters that have talked to Trump. How many times he uses I? Well, I might do this. Maybe I'll bomb this. Maybe I can do this. Well, I've said don't do that. This episode is brought to you by Total Wine and More. College basketball's biggest tournament is coming up. And if you're hosting the Watch Party this year, you're going to need to head to Total Wine and More. You can grab a few crowd pleasers, something everyone will drink, plus a couple of options for cocktails. Total Wine has an amazing selection, plus you know you're getting the lowest prices when you're planning for Game Day. Shop Total Wine and More, in-store or online for everything you need for the big tournament. Spirits are not sold in Virginia and North Carolina. Drink responsibly, B-21. Exima, is unpredictable. But you can flair less with eggless. A once-monthly treatment for moderate-to-supear eggsema. After an initial four-month or longer dosing phase, about four and ten people taking eggless, achieved itch relief and glare are almost glare skin at 16 weeks.

35:41And most of those people maintain skin that's still more glare at one year with monthly dosing. Hemgless, LibriKizumap, LBKZ. A 250mg per 2mL injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 lbs or 40kg with moderate-to-supear eggsema. Also called a topic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin, or topicals, or who cannot use topical therapies. Hemgless can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to hemgless. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with hemgless. Before starting hemgless, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Ask your doctor about hemgless and visit hemgless.lily.com or call 1-800-LilyRX or 1-800-545-5979. I don't think we should do this. John Bolton of all people was on social media saying, you know, I was for going in regime change in Iran in 2018 and 19. And people in Trump's orbit were saying, well, we got to worry about the straight of our moves.

36:43And of course, Trump didn't do it then. Trump didn't go to war then. So his point was, Trump has known about the problem of the straight of our moves since 2018 and 19, even when John Bolton, the Neocon, was out there pushing for war with Iran. And of course, Trump very critical of John Bolton and he's been arrested for state secrets. And I mean, we'll see what happens with that. But it's amazing. Even John Bolton. Hey, I was saying, we, you know, we got to worry about the, when people were saying, we got to worry about the straight of our moves. So Trump knew this and just didn't care. That's the thing. So if Congress could go and limit the objectives of the war, they make this a constitutional war. And this is what Calhoun's position is. We don't need executive government. We don't need unilateral executive control of warmaking. We need Congress to have a concurrent role in this or the primary role in all of this. He's against the war because of his adventurism. He thinks it's going to destroy the Constitution. He was right. Ultimately, it did.

37:44These are the things that Calhoun was saying in 1846 and 1847. He said a lot of other things about war in his career. Of course, he was Secretary of War at one time. He firmly believed in a strong defense. He firmly believed in the position of the United States out of strength. If they had strength, no one would attack us. But this is a whole nother ballgame here. We're actually invading a country. And what is going to be the outcome? How many Americans have to die? For what? To destroy the Constitution. And that's ultimately what happened. That's his point. And what are we doing now? How many Americans are going to die? We're already at, I think, around 200. Something like that, wounded. I don't know about deaths. It's still just, you know, a dozen, maybe less than a dozen. I can't remember now off top of my head. But still, we've had people killed. We've had 200 people wounded. What's going to be the ultimate outcome of this? And if boots actually show up on the ground, which there's some rumbling, this is going to start happening,

38:45what happens then? If you want regime change in Iran, which now Trump is saying we got to have a regime change, well, I mean, what does that mean? What kind of, you know, what kind of resources are going to be needed for that? Military and financial. This is a big, a big problem for the Trump administration. And if we just go back in American history, and we pay attention to people like John C. Calhoun, we would not get into these problems. That's the point. All right. Again, Calhoun's birthday. It's a great day to have a Calhoun Center podcast. See you next time on the Brian McLean Show. See you then. Bye.