Posted on 06/10/2006 6:20:18 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
Agreed.
Was Nation Building in Germany and Japan and.....Grenada legitimate.
Undecided, undecided, and yes.
Why?
Because it averted a Soviet beachhead in our hemisphere and did so at low cost.
where is it not legitimate? Why
Asked and answered.
the conclusion is that Nation Building is as American as Apple Pie
Nation building is far more often counter to our interests than otherwise. Almost the entirety of Africa and large swaths of Asia could stand rebuilding.
It is in question whether the post war Nation Building of Japan and Germany were worthwhile!!!!!!!!!!. Really????
I guess Paleos are living out in an even further dimension that I imagined.
One thing is certain. They will continue to be unhappy with any policy from any direction that has any semblance to being rational and they will continue to long for days from long ago that never actually existed.
Can you refute that, other than with an excess of punctuation marks?
Is that a manifestation of the impeccable Paleo logic? You have it exactly backwards.
The heavy, and impossible, burden would be on the person who asserts that the post war nation building of Germany and Japan- universally accepted as maybe one of the real foreign policy successes of the past 100 years- was not worthwhile.
So you get right on that Paleo thesis. Don't forget to include within your arguments the Paleo belief that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are a moat and we are safe, with no interest in the World, in fortress America.
Let me know when you complete your work. I'll read it just after I finish reading another brilliant analysis proving Armstrong only walked on a sound stage.
I didn't assert that. Beat your straw man elsewhere.
You: Undecided, undecided, and yes.
Let me know when you decide.
Bwhahahahahahaha! Please read Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America. The man was positively brilliant, dedicated to individual liberties, freedom and states rights - true federalism, not nationalism. Not globalism. Not nation building. Allowing Americans to retain their hard earned monies and getting the federal leviathan off our back. Dedicated to defending Americans (a la Israel these past few days). Lord we need another like him now. There's a reason our hostages were released when Reagan took office.
"As for this Paleocon, I am searching for a party that matches my "conscience."
You might want to check out Unity '08. www.unity08.com
See Article I §8 for the enumerated powers. Invading a state to force it remain in the union is not one of them, the use of force against a state was voted down twice in convention.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
See Article I §10 for the powers prohibited to the states. Secession is not prohibited. The founders just dissolved a perpetual union, and did not write such into this one.
The states met in convention (as required in a republican form of government), the people of each seceding state exercised their sovereign right to adopt a form of government that suits them best (see the Declaration of Independence). Per the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause, each state in American union was required to acknowledge the validity of the acts - even today New York cannot adjudge that a Georgia Act is illegal.
The states, as required, assembled and withdrew their ratifications, resuming their delegated powers from the union, and resumed their place among the governments of the world. The Supreme Court acknowledged the right of each state to leave in Penhallow v Doane's Administrators , 3 Dall. 54 (1795).
After secession, the several seceded states assembled as did their forefathers, in convention, to form a new Confederation. Before, during and after that convention the states independently, and the Confederate government sent emissaries to Washington to renumerate the union government for any and all properties, to discuss economic treaties, and the ensure that the Mississippi would remain open to federal traffic. Lincoln and Seward lied on every attempt, in particular to Justice Campbell, breaking the existing armistice, and sending armed troops into Confederate waters.
I guess you side with the Tories, and against the American colonies in the secession from Great Britain. Against the Declaration of Independence as well.
False. Guess you side with total anarchy. As is your interpretation of the Constituion. Sorry, but there it is. Your position is just untenable. The Convention they purposed to have, in fact, was totally defective. They could not secede from the government under the same procedure that the government had been created by. They needed the whole of the country. No "rump caucus" could effectuate any secession constitutionally. Secession can only happen by agreement, or there never was any union in the first place. The war for indepence was with 13 colonies declaring State sovereignty...that they had never had before. And it was done only with huge burdens of proof that the government was intolerable. As Jefferson said in the Declaration, Not for Light and Transient Causes.
The Slave states could not make any similar claims in their asserted (and basically phony) grievances. Secession is not at will. And most of the slave states were never sovereign, having been created by the national government's polity...which clearly retained sovereignty...and had been the entity which financed and protected these new territories and states. Absconding by a rump convention that no constitutional scholar would recognize as legitimate, and running with the money, so to speak, as if there is no debt owed, is just thievery.
BTW: Even following your position, let's say the Slave States successfully effectuated their secession legally...there is then NO LEGAL defense for the U.S.A. to then simply....DECLARE WAR ON A HOSTILE STATE. Which manifestly, the South was. You can still look at it that way...and guess who won. Get over it.
Blah blah blah. The Constitution delineates the powers delegated to the federal government. Unless you can point to a clause prohibiting secession, then you're just a believer in the liberals 'living' Constitution. I believe the founders gave us a government of the people, and that they abandoned their 'perputual' union that only lasted a decade.
Secession can only happen by agreement,
Source? Specifically a clause in the Constitution/
... or there never was any union in the first place.
Bingo! The states never merged, or became an amalgamated mass. A motion by Morris in the convention that would have done so never even received a second.
The war for indepence was with 13 colonies declaring State sovereignty...that they had never had before. And it was done only with huge burdens of proof that the government was intolerable. As Jefferson said in the Declaration, Not for Light and Transient Causes.
5 Colonies declared their independence prior to 4 Jul 1776. 8 more did so in the DoI. New York did not declare independence until August 1776. King George recognized their separate sovereingties a few years later, and three states specifically acceded to the Constitution retaining the right to resume their delegated powers at will.
The Slave states could not make any similar claims in their asserted (and basically phony) grievances.
Phony? The states had complained about execessive taxation for decades. Texas complained about the refusal of the fedal government to protect the state. The states complained about the northern internal improvements (aka 'pork projects') paid for by federal monies for decades. Ft. Sumter in SC was built with rocks from northern states instead of local sources. Northern shipping was protected by bounties, protection of northern industry was rampant, yankees attempted to incite riots in the South, and mass murders - John Brown et al - were lauded as heros by yankees, many of whom called the Constitution a compact with the devil. Phony? Such comments would indicate delusions. Tell me, do you think the Holocaust to be imaginary as well?
Secession is not at will.
You opinion doesn't matter, the only law applicable is the Constitution, which does not prohibit secession. Per Amendment 10, that power is reserved to the states. Each state acceded unilateraly, and each state can secede unilaterally.
And most of the slave states were never sovereign, having been created by the national government's polity
Wrong. The terrtories for such were ceded by numerous Southern states, lands purchased by the federal government, by petition for admission/annexation (Texas, Hawaii). Every state in the union has joined on an equal footing, and possessess all rights and poweres of any original member.
...which clearly retained sovereignty...
Source please? Anywhere in the Constitution perhaps? See above.
...and had been the entity which financed and protected these new territories and states.
So? Each state and territory pays taxes, one of the specifically enumerated tasks of the federal overnment is to protect them. The federal government is the agent of the states - that still doesn't prohibit secession.
Absconding by a rump convention that no constitutional scholar would recognize as legitimate,
LOL! Do you feel the same about the 'rump legislature' of Virginia? Where specfically in the Constitution does it describe what procedure a state must take to secede?
and running with the money, so to speak, as if there is no debt owed, is just thievery.
SC sent representatives to treat with federal authorities to renumerate them, as did the Confederate States. No one was trying to steal anything. Try again.
BTW: Even following your position, let's say the Slave States successfully effectuated their secession legally...there is then NO LEGAL defense for the U.S.A. to then simply....DECLARE WAR ON A HOSTILE STATE.
If the seceded states had hostile intentions I would agree, but they didn't (see above).
Which manifestly, the South was.
LOL. The seceded states had declared that trade routes - especially the Mississippi - would remain open, there would not be walls/forts built, no invasion attempted, the South simply wanted to be left alone.
You can still look at it that way...and guess who won. Get over it.
If might makes right, then the Iraqis would still be tortured by Sadaam. The North might have won by preventing medicines from reaching the needy (including POWs); by destroying homes, food, livestock,; by waging war on defenseless old men, women and children; by conscripting blacks; by plundering the South of her valuables, but that does not make her cause just. It means that her cause was not just, and generations like you must attempt to brainwash us into believing it was.
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.