Posted on 02/09/2005 11:21:04 PM PST by ovrtaxt
However, anyone can ask for a court ruling, if I understand correctly? I think you are correct that the courts may not arbitrarily decide to rule on cases which have not been brought before them?
"In other words, these are powers that evolved out of practicality."
The "power" to ask for War? I don't think of "power" to require further authorization or approval.
I understand the "skeletal" nature of the Constitution and I believe that the federal government only has the authority to establish various institutions whose DIRECT purpose is to carry out specific Constitutional obligations. Any gov't agency which cannot point to specific language in the Constitution as its own justification must be eliminated. To summarize it another way, read my tagline.
"Read Article II, Section 2 more closely, and you'll see that that refers to the state militias:"
No. If that were the case, a comma would not appear between "the several States" and "when called into".
"1) in whose service are the Army and Navy during times of peace? And are they not "in service to the U.S." even during times of peace, when they are busy patrolling the sea lanes, keeping hostile armies at bay with their sheer presence, etc.; and 2) why would every president be referred to as commander-in-chief when we haven't had a declared war since 1945, and not every president since then has seen an undeclared war? Who is the C-in-C during times of peace?"
One at a time.
1.The US Army and Navy ALWAYS serve the People.
2.During 'peace', the Army and Navy are not in 'actual' service, they are in some other unnamed state.
3.I don't believe the US military should be 'patrolling the sea lanes' (except our own coastline) or 'keeping hostile armies at bay', so that question is moot. If you want the Strait of Hormuz or the Indian Ocean 'patrolled', go do it yourself with your own money.
4.I don't refer to George Bush as the Commander in Chief. Perhaps 41 was close in Desert Storm, certainly more so than Vietnam or Iraq II.
5.It seems as though we do not have a Commander in Chief in times of 'peace'. Why would we need one? Do you really think George Bush knows more about how to maintain an Army than the Army Generals?
"Again, read Article II, Section 2 more carefully:"
Why? You said the same thing I said. We seem to agree that recess appointments are temporary and can only be made when the vacancy happens during a Senate recess.
"Besides, if I remember correctly, some of Clinton's recess appointments were for vacancies that happened before the recess began, and there are probably many other examples."
This makes me think you are a "RATS=bad, Rhinos=good" Bushbot. How long are we going to relive the 90's? I don't accept the '2 wrongs make a right' crap, or the 'Clinton did something worse so this isn't that bad' BS either.
"Since when has Congress and the president worried too much over the precise wording of the Constitution? Heck, 80% of what they spend isn't authorized by the document!"
It's been quite a while. Clearly the Democrat party has turned into some sort of socialist/communist front and is irrelevant. People who vote for Democrats don't want to obey the Constitution and they don't want capitalism. However, the GOP isn't much better, in fact I think the GOP is just less bad. This is why I get so angry when I hear about the Bush mandate and all that. Bush won so America believes in his policies. NO, we just decided his policies were less destructive than Kerry's. Point being, anyone who really wants a Constitutional Republic in which government is small, taxes are low, freedom is real, and the economy is strong should turn off Rush Limbaugh and quit drinking the "neo-con" kook-aid. It's time to choose principle over partisan politics. I'm not afraid of President Hillary nearly as much as I am of phony RINO Representatives and Senators like the ones who go along with Bush's big gov't "conservatism".
In re: PROOF of "my" "bold and radical re-interpretation"...
I told you I'd be happy to send some other docs your way, although I don't find proving to you what I know to be true the least bit obligatory, especially when you have not offered any substantive evidence to the contrary. You want me to prove what I believe to be true while you fail to offer the same consideration. As I've told you, careful inspection of the Constitution as written yields all the proof one could possibly need. Other than a dictionary, a moderate understanding of major historical events, and a basic comprehension of the majority philosophy held by our founders (free markets, personal responsibility, limited government, God-given inalienable & unalienable rights...) I think the Constitution itself is enough to decipher the intent of the men who wrote it.
Consider this:
Which branch has the power to remove the President?
Which branch has the power to remove federal judges?
Which branch has the power to remove legislators?
Answer: the Legislative Branch. All roads begin and end at the Capitol, whether or not you wish to acknowledge that fact as such.
1.The US Army and Navy ALWAYS serve the People.
Uh, no, its not the People's Army of the United States, unlike in China.
2.During 'peace', the Army and Navy are not in 'actual' service, they are in some other unnamed state.
Uh, no. They are either at peace or at war. There is no ethereal unnamed state of being for the Armed Forces.
3.I don't believe the US military should be 'patrolling the sea lanes' (except our own coastline) or 'keeping hostile armies at bay', so that question is moot. If you want the Strait of Hormuz or the Indian Ocean 'patrolled', go do it yourself with your own money.
This response really shows your detachment from reality. One of the functions of the navies of all sea-going nations involved in international trade, for centuries, has been patrolling the sea lanes. Also, what do you think was the purpose of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who served in Germany during the Cold War? Keeping the Red Army from taking over! Duh!!! Providing for the common defense is one of the things our Constitution assigns to the federal government. Maybe you can ignore reality ("I don't believe the US military should be 'patrolling the sea lanes' (except our own coastline) or 'keeping hostile armies at bay', so that question is moot."), but that doesn't mean the rest of us can. You need to understand that your opinions don't outweigh the Constitution!
4.I don't refer to George Bush as the Commander in Chief. Perhaps 41 was close in Desert Storm, certainly more so than Vietnam or Iraq II.
Well, gee! Veritas doesn't refer to George Bush as C-in-C, so I guess we'd better amend the Constitution to strip him of that title.
5.It seems as though we do not have a Commander in Chief in times of 'peace'. Why would we need one? Do you really think George Bush knows more about how to maintain an Army than the Army Generals?
What are you babbling about? No C-in-C in times of peace? You are truly delusional! To whom does the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff report? Hmmm, President Bush or Veritas? I'm pretty sure I've seen reference to the former in various news articles, but not the latter.
Then we have this little misunderstanding on your part:
HenryLeeII: "Read Article II, Section 2 more closely, and you'll see that that refers to the state militias:"
Veritas: No. If that were the case, a comma would not appear between "the several States" and "when called into".
The section reads: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...
Notice that the Army and Navy are contained in one clause, not separated by a comma, as the Militia is separated. Its not written "...of the Army, Navy, and the Militia..." Also, if you've saved any elementary school English grammar books, you may want to look up 'subordinate clause' to read the reasoning behind the comma between 'several States' and 'when called into actual service...'
Also, you retorted, "The "power" to ask for War? I don't think of "power" to require further authorization or approval.
Since foreign policy (and declaring war on a country certainly is a change in policy) is the domain of the president/commander-in-chief, the Senate has never declared war without first being asked. Therefore, that is a power that has been added to the president/commander-in-chief's resume.
But, as we now stand, due to your insistence that the President is not the Commander in Chief during times of peace, and that we have a People's Army, I must amend your assingment to include primary sources for such radical revisions to our body politic, in addition to the primary source for your as-yet unsubstantiated claim that the Founders intended for the Legislative Branch to be the most powerful and the Judicial to be the weakest. Please finish these assignments before any further radical revisions to our Constitution.
"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
-- Thomas Jefferson , letter to Monsieur A. Coray, October 31, 1823.
Unfortunately, after a cursory Google search, I haven't yet found the entire letter or passage that this is taken from. I keep finding the truncated quote that you've offered. But, I have to think that from the word 'constitutions' and the reference to a lack of removal mechanism for judges, that Jefferson was not discussing the U.S. Constitution for three reasons: 1) The plural form leads me to believe he's discussing the several states' constitutions, many of whom preceded our federal document; 2) the U.S. Constitution provides for impeachment and removal of all federal officers; and 3) its not capitalized.
As I mentioned briefly before in an earlier reply, Jefferson and many other Founders feared the Judiciary more than the other two branches, and made sure that there were checks and balances (e.g. impeachment of judges; not being able to rule on a law until a relevant case is at hand) to prevent them from taking over the powers of the other two branches.
Also, be careful when reading passages from this time period. George Washington wrote of a 'lumber room' on the third floor of Mount Vernon, but its not where he stored lumber or firewood. Lumber referred to odds-and-ends, items that aren't used all that often, such as discarded furniture, toys, etc. When Jefferson wrote of the judiciary as "supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government," that is not relevant to the intentions of the Founders (unless you can find the rest of the letter in which he addresses that issue specifically), but rather, he's alluding to the fact that they don't initiate any laws or actions (i.e. its a passive body as opposed to the active Executive and Legislative Branches). He goes on to discuss the lack of a removal mechanism for corrupt judges, etc., which of course cannot be in reference to the federal Constitution since all federal officers are subject to impeachment and removal.
"Uh, no, its not the People's Army of the United States, unlike in China."
The US gov't IN ITS ENTIRETY exists to serve the People of the United States. Have you read the part of the Constitution called the "Preamble".
"Uh, no. They are either at peace or at war. "
I was referring to the language in the Constitution. It says the President is the Commander in Chief when called into "ACTUAL" service.
I overreached with the "patrolling sea lanes" comment. If the mission is to secure our national interests, okay. Have we assumed this burden for the entire world, or at least the lion's share of it? Other nations need to pay money to us or provide men and ships to help the effort. I thought you meant patrol the seas as part of keeping other countries at bay.
Would it shock you to learn that I don't understand how Nazi Germany threatened the United States? Or for that matter how the Soviet Union did either? They may very well both have been direct threats, but I don't know the reason or reasons.
"Notice that the Army and Navy are contained in one clause, not separated by a comma, as the Militia is separated"
Yes, I do. That is because the Army and the Navy are federal entities (notice the "of the United States" qualifier), while the militias are State entities (notice the "of the several States" qualifier). There would be no logical reason to address them in one clause or phrase as you try to suggest.
"To whom does the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff report?"
The Congress, after all, that is where the bread is buttered, remember? I don't even know why we have a Secretary of Defense or "Joint Chiefs". But you did not answer the question I posed. If we are at peace, why should the President be in command of the Army? Remember, the founders wanted to make sure the President couldn't go on unilateral military adventures with no particular and specific authorization. Therefore, doesn't it make sense that the Army would only be under his control when the People (i.e. the Congress) determine and state that we are at war?
"To whom does the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff report? Hmmm, President Bush or Veritas?"
Are you suggesting that the military exists to serve the President? If so, we have more problems than I thought.
Most of what you say is straw men arguments.
I can't find a context for that either. I happened to stumble across it accidentally and thought I'd post it.
The answer to question #1 is no, not professionally. I do it for fun and personal enjoyment, day in and day out.
Perhaps his letter was to a Frenchman (Monseur), and referred to the US and French Constitutions?
/wild guess
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.