Posted on 04/20/2013 12:55:08 PM PDT by yoe
I hear the sunset is nice, and the food is okay.
Yeah well they’re out of control but we must resist.
I support using the 10th amendment and nullifying these laws at state level and daring the Feds to send in the stormtroopers
Check out 10th amendment center (google it). You can nullify everything from his healthcare law to his drug laws (CO and WA recently did just that). It’s a useful tool.
Absolutely.
I heard Linseed on Fox this morning. He actually made sense (I am sorry Lord, for uttering those words....)
He must have stuck his finger into the air to see what way the wind was blowing rather than up John McCain Arse to see what way Johnny boy’s wind was blowing when he passed gas....
He certainly did commit a federal crime. this wasn’t simple murder. This was an attack and assault on the United States.
While it fits a traditional definition of treason, I seriously doubt that he will be charged with treason as the liberals have defined away treason from having any meaning.
Ok... well that’s excessively broad.
Offenses against the laws of nations; suppress insurrection and repel rebellions.
The part about the scissors traveling across state lines: that’s positively stupid. As for the perpetrators themselves traveling across state lines in order to commit the crime and then retreating back out... that’s valid.
“Congress hasn’t declare a war for 60 years...”
You might want to reread the historical record on the meaning of to declare war. it is come to have a second meaning now as a matter of law because it engages the whole series of additional penalties and authorizations of power by the federal government, but in the relevant portion the declaration of or is not required when we are attacked. A declaration of war would be neede if for example we decided to take Mexico. The declaration of war would not need to occur to conduct military actions if Mexico or entities in Mexico attacked us.
I would argue that if there’s a war or “military action” it ought to be declared properly like in 1941.
The problem is they pass resolutions rather than declare war and now they have this “War Powers Act”.
Declaring war forces political leaders to put the country in a a state of war, to win the war and to end it swiftly. It will get debated constantly and that’s a good thing. There would not be these 10 year no-win wars. Why are we still in Afghanistan?
Passing authorizations allows the military to execute their part of the war without invoking the War Powers Act and other like expansions of power, including suspension of habeus corpus. I would think civil libertarians would appreciate doing it that way.
The distinction I made is not something new: it dates back to the Founding Fathers, and was specifically invoked during the wars on the Barbary Pirates.
Personally I prefer the actual declaration of War as prescribed under the constitution because it allows for definable objectives. Congress can undeclare when objectives are met and the military men and women can come home. I don’t believe in just passing a resolution and leaving everything up to the president. I believe this is a grave mistake and if you look at the military efforts since a war was actually declared I would suggest there is overwhelming evidence of instances where the objective has been abandoned or met and we’re still there. i.e Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Afghan war has gone on longer than WW1 and WW2 combined. This is simply ridiculous...
“Afghan war has gone on longer than WW1 and WW2 combined.”
Not if you use like definitions.
Explain?
What was the objective of the Afghan war? to rid the country of the taliban? Done years ago. To get OBL? He was in Pakistan and he’s been caught/killed.
But still there...
Iraq: Saddam was overthrown almost immediately and “mission accomplished” declared by the president but it still went on for too long.
Politically Iraq was devastating for the GOP. We lost the House and senate in 06 and 08 and because some of the blue dog morons were left over in 2009 they rammed through Obamacare.
It’s just not good policy. Declare the wars and the Congress has more control rather than the office of the presidency (whomever occupies it)
I have no problem with rebellions as long as they remain isolated to their area, and have the support of local officials. Otherwise they might be regarded as an insurrection.
“Then let’s tack on the federal charges of denying someone the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that is what will be required to fry this a hole.”
That is not a charge. that is 3 or more separate and unspecific offence.
The Global Leaders know they have to have the Arab and Islamic blocks on board...and they know they have the oil revenues for only so long, and the power it welds.
The Arab Spring..so called, Libya and Egypt change in leadership equally is to positions nations....Assad in Syria...it's his turn to go down....
One cannot understand nation wars and happenings without keeping a pulse on the larger picture of the Global Agenda...and the Alignment of blocks for trade etc.
I didn’t say it was easy. But if Congress didn’t declare war, then we don’t suspend the rule of law.
If you’re willing to give the Federal government the power to magically suspend civil rights at whim, then you might well find yourself in the next unapproved group they target.
Our system of justice was never meant to be easy. But it can still work, and all our liberties need not be sacrificed in the process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.