A Just and Lasting Peace : A fly in the ointment

The focus of the constitution is almost entirely on the positions vis-à-vis one another of the general and state governments.

Pretty much all of it is about what the general government but not the states may or must do, or what the states but not the general government may or must do, or what the general government may not do, or what the states may not do.

The constitution says not one word about making laws to govern conquered peoples, meddling with their governments, or erecting governments for them.

It says nothing about creating occupation governments.

It says nothing about overthrowing existing governments altogether and replacing them with something we prefer.

It says congress can declare war, make rules for the land and naval forces, and raise and pay for an army and a navy.

It says the president is commander in chief of all the military forces.

It says the president can make treaties with approval of two thirds of the senators present to vote.

[Aside:

Neither the supremacy clause of Article IV nor anything else in the constitution says treaties trump  the constitution, itself.

That clause says all 3 of the US constitution, federal laws, and treaties trump state legislation and state constitutions.

Article IV, Section 2.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

/Aside]

Making laws to govern conquered peoples, meddling with their governments, or erecting governments for them are just different activities from any of those.

Not a word.

Hence the general government cannot claim to be or have been empowered by the constitution to do any of that.

Hence Thaddeus Stevens' absurd recourse in his speech, about which I posted below, to books about imaginary laws of nature by European authors to decide what the federal government can do in that line.

Hence the frequent recourse of US officials, concerning such matters, to decisions or mandates of the UN or other bodies that we, by treaty, are bound to respect.

Or, both before and after creation of the UN, to international compacts covering that sort of ground to which we are or have been a party by treaty.

A recourse for which there is constitutional authority.

Was there anything in any of that to warrant the US occupation governments of Japan and Germany after The Second World War?

To warrant our joining with the allies in the extensive purges of Nazis in Germany, and our demands concerning their new, post-Nazi government in West Germany?

Our massive intrusions on the sovereignty of Japan for many years after the war (1945 through 1952), and our demands concerning their government?

Was the US just winging it, and nobody minded?