Free Republic

Most of us here know socialism is a failure, but maybe the arguments presented in the article can shed light of the how and why in relation to other countries. I think that can help with arguments here at home for those who can't see the reality.

Thats true but I don’t recall reading that a police action was exempt from regular constitutional requirements. At least some form of authorization would be nice, but it seems as many here have pointed out that congress, regardless of party, no longer takes its responsibility seriously.

Presidential War Powers: The Constitutional Answer

by Tom Woods

There’s a lot of confusion, on right and left alike, regarding the president’s war powers under the Constitution. Here’s an overview of the most common claims on behalf of such powers, along with replies to these claims.

“The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress.”

Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution – which refers to the president as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” – has been interpreted this way.

But what the framers actually meant by that clause was that once war has been declared, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war. Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/warpowers/

I think we will have to add a few lines of text to the constitution at some point in order to put these sorts of issues to rest. Regardless though, there is no justification for the conflict in Syria because there is no imminent threat to the United States.

Everyone seems to be so busy thinking about the latest apparent chemical weapons attack inside Syria and what to do about, that they are not even aware of the fact that Obama has no authority to launch a strike without congressional approval.

We know there are extremists among the rebels, and while tragic the situation is not directly affecting the US, why then are we on the brink of another war?

I wrote the linked article to spark some sort of debate, does anyone here think its actually a good idea to go into Syria at this point?

I think the powers that be are not really considering the need to follow up any strike with ground forces to secure the chemical weapons that could fall into the hands of AL-qaeda sympathizers if Assad falls. The mess we are heading into could make Iraq and Afghanistan seem like a training exercise.

So conservatives are NOT in favor of self-government and a limted state that is answerable to the people?

The the right to a speedy and fair trail is an extension of the fundamental right to life, and the right not to be deprived of it, along with your other basic rights. The constitution recognizes this but does so within the specific context of the common law tradition where jury trials evolved over time as the preferred method of settling disputes fairly.

This is the same with many aspects of our form of government, where tradition outlines the specific way in which a fundamental right is to be protected.

The topic is interesting, because Edmund Burke argued that all our rights are essentially traditional in nature and that it makes little sense for a country with no history of respecting them and enshrining them in law, to have a revolution and all of a sudden have liberty.

This is why he simultaneously rejected the validity of the French revolution while accepting the American one.

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-political-philosophy-edmund-burke-267253.html?cat=37

Liberals dont really understand that what they sometimes call "rights" are not really rights at all, at least not in a way that makes logical sense when compared to something like freedom of speech.