It is only possible because persons like yourself keep putting these crooks into office, like the support for pretenders and liars like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
However, the leaders, such as Ted Cruz, you choose to elect are responsible for overextending this delegated authority in ways which are unconstitutional.
It took place under the leadership of foreign citizens pretending to be lawful U.S. citizens, such as Chester Arthur and Barack Hussein Obama, not to mention who knows how many Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and others who you have helped to get elected as you are no with Senator Ted Cruz.
You have no idea who I've helped elect and who I've voted for, which means you have no basis for these stupid, inane statements here on FreeRepublic.
Now that you've had your monumentally irrational rant, let's take a look at the realities of what you had to say:
Only some of the government leaders are bought and paid for by foreign governments and only to some degree and in some matters enriching the offenders in power and/or money.
Oh, I see ... so that must mean it's OK.
The primary purpose of the U.S. armed forces is to deter and, when necessary, combat hostile foreign military forces, preferably outside our borders; so your indiscriminate accusation is irrational and completely contrary to Constitutional law.
The Constitution clearly spells out a process through which the U.S. military is to deter and combat foreign military forces. The U.S. government has spent several trillion dollars on military campaigns all over the globe since World War II -- none of them involving a formal declaration of war as required by the U.S. Constitution.
How many military facilities did the U.S. have in foreign countries when the Constitution was ratified?
That is another blatantly false statement. The Constitution expressly grants the President and the Congress the authority to engage in such an international organization.
However, the leaders, such as Ted Cruz, you choose to elect are responsible for overextending this delegated authority in ways which are unconstitutional.
And what ways would that be?
That has to be one of the most ignorant and silly comments yet. All of U.S. law is based upon foreign law precedents that are properly cited in U.S. court decisions.
Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and William Breyer cited foreign laws and court decisions in several "gay rights" and death penalty cases back as far back as 2005. Are you suggesting that these foreign legal precedents have any place in U.S. law? Justice Scalia didn't think so. His dissent in these cases was clear: "The basic premise of the court's argument -- that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world -- ought to be rejected out of hand."
I'll stand with the late Justice Scalia on this one, dude -- no matter how "ignorant and silly" you think this is.
“You have no idea who I’ve helped elect and who I’ve voted for, which means you have no basis for these stupid, inane statements here on FreeRepublic.”
That is more nonsense talk from you. If you voted for Mitt Romney, a person ineligible to serve as President, you helped to elect Obama. If you voted for John McCain in the primary and/or the general election, you helped to put Obama in office. If you voted for Ronald Reagan and H. George W. Bush, you helped H. George Bush and George W. Bush to become President, which made it possible for Obama to become President. If you voted for Richard Nixon, you helped John Ford and Jimmy Carter to become President. If you voted for any of those Presidents, you helped a number of their social welfare policies and the justices they appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court to wreck the Constitution. The long long list goes on. Meanwhile, you propose to continue the corruption by your support of Ted Cruz, who along with his father have a history of lies, deceit, and unethical conduct. So, don’t tell me I have no way of knowing who and what you voted for, when it plainly obvious few people who have ever voted for a Republican or a Democrat can escape being associated with some degree of responsibility for allowing their corrupt leadership to remain present in the U.S. Government.
“Oh, I see ... so that must mean it’s OK.”
Of course it does not “mean it’s OK.” On the contrary, it means such corruption is not acceptable and it is not total as you falsely claimed by misleadingly saying all were so in a false bit of hyperbole.
“The Constitution clearly spells out a process through which the U.S. military is to deter and combat foreign military forces. The U.S. government has spent several trillion dollars on military campaigns all over the globe since World War II — none of them involving a formal declaration of war as required by the U.S. Constitution.”
The Constitution has never required a formal declaration of war in order to authorize the use of military force. That is just another of those commonly repeated fantasies exactly opposed to reality. A formal declaration of war is just one of many kinds of belligerency, and it happens to be the one of those several kinds of belligerency which has been granted as a power of the Congress in addition to all of the other types. The people who keep making this fallacious claim are just displaying their ignorance of the subject.
“How many military facilities did the U.S. have in foreign countries when the Constitution was ratified?”
The United States at the time the Constitution was ratified had no Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Revenue Marine, other than the state militia; and this was due to the fact the nation was financially insolvent after the expenditures for the American Revolutionary War and the lack of funding under the Articles of Confederation. As a consequence of having no military forces during this period, the United States and its citizens were subjected to a variety of aggressions for which it had no effective means of responding in self defense. As a consequence, the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and Revenue-Marine were organized in response to the need for domestic and foreign military and naval operations.
“And what ways would that be?”
Ted Cruz worked hard to find various means of allowing illegal aliens to remain in the United States while working for the Bush Administration.
“Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and William Breyer cited foreign laws and court decisions in several “gay rights” and death penalty cases back as far back as 2005. Are you suggesting that these foreign legal precedents have any place in U.S. law? Justice Scalia didn’t think so. His dissent in these cases was clear: “The basic premise of the court’s argument — that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world — ought to be rejected out of hand.””
You had better stay away from law and politics because you have the whole subject muddled up so badly you haven’t got a clue what your are talking about. I say this because you are confusing two wholly different arguments and jumping to a fantastically wrong conclusion as a consequence. Past case law and past statutory laws are cited in legal cases whether or not they are used to confirm or deny any given part of the case before the court of law. A citation is the reference to a source of law and legal literature. Whether or not a given citation of law is going to be used as a basis of deciding for or against the case is up to the presiding judge/s and the trier of the case, such as a jury. The authority of American common law and the Law of Nations, which is of course foreign international law, and the laws authorizing the Constitution itself are all enshrined in the Constitution. While you can oppose and deny the authority of individual foreign legal precedents on the basis of their being inapplicable and/or contrary to U.S. law, you certainly cannot go around denying the existence and the authority of foreign law precedents being the origin and foundation of United States law that is often still applicable in today’s U.S. courts without revealing yourself to be some kind of ignorant screwball.
“I’ll stand with the late Justice Scalia on this one, dude — no matter how “ignorant and silly” you think this is.”
You are falsely portraying Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and his position. Only some forms of foreign laws are applicable as precedents in a U.S. course of law, and that is only when they are among the Law of Nations and common law authorized by the Constitution. Naturally, foreign laws that are recognized by the Constitution and foreign laws not authorized by the Constitution must be cited in the arguments for and against in any given case. Your argument against citing foreign laws is like saying you cannot write a theme paper, dissertation, or book that includes citations of other foreign publications. That is why your comment is ignorant and an irrational assertion.