Posted on 05/17/2004 7:20:20 AM PDT by Nexus
In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.
The last I checked, we haven't had a declaration of war in over 60 years. Military force was never meant to be at the discretion of the president.
"What does Article I, Section 8 state?"
What, don't you own a copy of the Constitution?
Ok, billbears... Here you go:
Section 8. Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have the power
1. to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:
2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes:
4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States:
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:
6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:
7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:
8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:
10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:
12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:
15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:
16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:
17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings:
And, 18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
I see from your various attempts at argument that you rely on Paragraph 12.
Funny, I see in P12 a limit on the term of funding, but no limit on the actual standing army. I then see in P18 the authorization of the Congress to make all laws needed for carrying into execution the power of "raising and supporting an army".
Seems to me that you don't have a healthy base from which to argue.
I will also direct your attention to paragraphs 13 and 14 - provide and *maintain* a navy, and make rules governing and regulating land and naval forces - and suggest you consider how the standing land army is clearly endorsed and held separate from the general militia, as made clear by the text of paragraph 15.
***
Darksheare,
You weren't wrong.
I am peeing myself in anticipation of seeing how one or more of the Splinters of Galt answer my #682
We even had congress declare war over the Barbary pirate city states. Our first declared war.
"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:"
This is where these people try their best to spin their point of view that the military is unconstitutional but they're wrong.
They fail to realize that the military is ONLY funded one year at a time. That little sentence just states that you can't create a budget for the military for more than two years at a time. We don't do that. We fund the military of the U.S. ONE YEAR AT A TIME! So we are funded from year to year WITH THE LEGAL APPROVAL of the Congress. To listen to the Liberaltarians on this thread who have NO CLUE...you'd think that the military could ONLY be stood up for two years and then disbanded after that period of time.
Survey says....ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR....WRONG ANSWER!
Thank you for playing and see you next time on LET'S SPIN THE CONSTITUTION!
I am assuming that address was to the Galtoid Splinters, not to me? Seeing as I argued along exactly the line you just used?
That's affirmative sir. Just included you in there as a courtesy. You and I are tracking on the same wavelength.
Is there another wavelength? ;)
I mean, the text is pretty clear.
I don't know how the Galtoid Splinters have managed to so badly misread the document they site. Perhaps, like the Global Warming people, they first plotted their line and then drew their points to match it?
You're correct, but I think you are wasting your time. These people appear to believe that the President is not accountable to anyone.
Speaking of the President, I wonder if any of them have noticed that he doesn't seem to be saying anything about the "big WMD find". Nor Rummy. Nor anybody else, except the Official Mouth of The King, Faux News. And even they aren't mentioning any names...just anon "Defense Dept officials". If this were so rock solid you would think they would be trumpeting it to the skies.
If this were so rock solid you would think they would be trumpeting it to the skies.
Well, that kind of logic makes sense to us. But, then again, you and I still have that naive belief that politicians should be held accountable. Perhaps when we have matured and understand how the "real world" works we may think differently. ;-)
"I don't know how the Galtoid Splinters have managed to so badly misread the document they site."
Well as the two posts below your last one indicate...they choose to view what it says in a way that fits ther extremely narrow view of the world and how they percieve it should be run.
And when they've been proven wrong in thir statements. They resort to self aggrandizing and claiming that the rest of us are just naive and are as "worldly" in our view of government.
It's either that or they are trying to use the section of the constitution they cite as a cover for the fact they are anti-military, and anti-war. Either way they are wrong.
The Galted one's ideological progeny have yet to answer.
Obviously because they have no argument or basis from which to work.
They're falling down on teh job.
The Galtedone would have argued any position that undermined the military and the US without regard to fact or logic.
I.E. his insistance that Sarin is not a WMD.
"Perhaps when we have matured and understand how the "real world" works we may think differently. ;-)"
Ahh so you're saying that you and your kind are more "nuanced"?
How verry Kerry-esque of you.
Hope the DNC is paying you well to troll these threads for them.
All I need to know about the real world, I learned at the side of a howitzer.
Ha, ha...ZOT's work is never done!
That's it? Don't our fearless leaders have anything to say about it?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1137857/posts?page=403#403
Burkenstock boy minimises the importance of the finding of the supposedly nonexistent Sarin shells.
Check out one of the Galtedone's buddies comments at these links.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1137857/posts?page=399#399
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1137857/posts?page=403#403
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1137857/posts?page=406#406
Is it me, or did he just contradict himself?
It looks like Zot might get a workout again today. Go over to that obit thread that got started yesterday.
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.