Posted on 06/21/2007 9:45:15 AM PDT by anotherview
HOWEVER-- I hope you will understand that I regard the UN going around indicting people of "genocide" is a very bad thing. It was a mistake for President Reagan to endorse the genocide treaty (as Jewish conservatives at the time maintained). The "genocide treaty" was written in such a way as to exempt Communist governments from conviction and you may be sure its main purpose is to be used against the United States and Israel (in fact, Israel will probably be the first nation to be hit with it).
Think for a minute what it would be like if the UN could go around charging anyone in any country of "advocating genocide." Considering there is only one Jewish country and perhaps fifty Arab/islamic ones, who do you think would be invoking it? And considering some of the things said about Arabs/moslems here on FR, can't you see that theoretically any FReeper could be hauled before the UN on charges of "genocide?"
"Genocide" has become the charge d'jour. The United States has been accused of "genocide" of Blacks and Indians, Australian of aborigines, and (most of all) Israel of the "palestinians." We don't need a UN with the power to indict or try people for anything. (And besides, as I stated before, this toothless resolution is primarily to give a "pro-Israel record" to liberals.)
Finally, I am opposed to any global authority that is not based explicitly and firmly on the laws of the True G-d. Any other such world authority would be a potential Tower of Babel.
Now guys, I hope neither of you accuses me of being a "paleaocon" or a Birchite or a Ron Paul supporter, because you know very well it's not true.
The UN is Israel's deadliest enemy. Neither Israel nor the US should be members or even recognize its legitimacy. The fact that a bunch of Nazis are running around screaming "Get us out of the Zionist UN!" no more changes that than the endorsement of Israel by many liberals changes the fact that Israel is G-d's Chosen People!
I sincerely hope nothing I have said here will be misunderstood, however much you might disagree with me.
LOL. Sometimes FR reminds me of an elementary school playground.
>> Oh, they'll probably spin it with a whole bunch of anti-UN language. Whatever it takes to justify their "fortress America" cowardice of letting the islamofascists gain in strength until they become a problem too big to contain, all the while blaming the US for everything. <<
It's simple, they're just say the UN is unconsititutional, any resolution dealing with the UN, even if it's call for a positive action, is unconstitutional, and heck, maybe Israel is "unconstitutional" too. And Congressional resolutions are "unconstitutional" as well, because Ron Paul says so and he's ALWAYS right, being the world's foremost expert on everything regarding the consitution.
But as long as we are paying for the UN as an advisory body, we should use it as a bully pulpit to put scum like Ahmadinejad on notice.
If you note, he is already backtracking today - one of his toadies is now claiming that he was misquoted about wiping Israel off the map.
Ahmadinejad keeps pushing the envelope with his behavior and rhetoric - hoping that everyone but the US will give him a pass.
Any criticism that comes from a source external to the US and UK confuses him.
No arguments here.
“To wit: his bizarre suggestion that instead of assaulting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan the Congress should have issued letters of marque and reprisal.”
It’s bizzare to go after Bin Laden with another tool available and permitted by the Constitution? Why would you disagree with that and deem it silly? Do you understand the proposal and it’s potential effect in the effort to capture Bin Laden? I don’t think you do. That or perhaps you support Bin Laden and his minions. I sure hope otherwise. But based on this bizzare post you either don’t understand the proposal and it’s potential effect, or you don’t want Bin Laden captured. You tell me.
More likley, he didn't see the provision that empowers congress with the ability to charge the leaders of other nations with crimes.
“Unless one is blind, one knows that the terrorists currently operating in Iraq pose a clear threat to the national security of the United States.”
Right now, their clearest threat is to their opposition in Iraq, and to the US forces in Iraq. Neither are a threat to our National Security no matter how many times you repeat it.
I would agree that failure to eliminate them Iraq would be a loss at this juncture. However, if you are not blind, then you also realize that by elimintating them in Iraq, we do not solve the problem of global terrorism. Since terrorists operate on a global scale for govt and private entities even our leaders refuse to publically acknowledge.
How do you explain this?
Excellent, I love it...
The problem is the UN is largely our own creation. That it has been twisted into something else beyond its intent is the big problem.
If we want to change this dynamic it is not up to the congress but to the people.
Um, sorry no it's not. If it were, Foreign Aid would have been instituted on a regular basis before the 20th century, which in fact it was not. I realize progressives such as yourself, in fact the whole of the Republican party, chooses to invent new powers as needed but...
Foreign aid is a system by which the American taxpayers are forced, in the name of national security or defense of the free world, or charity, or whatever the politicians tell us, to subsidize US export companies and prop up client states that are often ruled by dictators.Constitutionally, of course, none of this spending is authorized. The US Constitution was written under what is referred to as positive grant. In short, what this means is that the federal government is authorized to engage in only those activities specifically authorized by the Constitution. Positive = authorized activities. Grant = specifically listed.
Just to make sure this principle was legally codified, the Tenth Amendment was included:
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.
Thats the beauty of the document. it does not get into the petty details allowing for the changing needs of our nation.
Ah yes the progressive call. It's a 'living breathing document'. It means what we say it means. Sad to see the party of conservatives has fallen so far. You want to throw your tax dollars away, go for it. As for me, I'll have mine back thank you very much. I could use them much better than for the US government to fund another tin pot dictator
First, thanks for the laugh, lumping me in with progressives, that is a good one...
Made my wife chuckle too, she being a former Democrat...
Now on to the games
Despite the “living document screed” as it is often used by “my fellow” progressives (and my fellow conservatives when need be) it is indeed an organic construct. If that was not the intention pray tell why it is amendable. That pretty much ends the argument right there. If the people wanted to do away with the constitution tomorrow and they got enough votes, the 28th amendment could say hey, ignore all that other stuff above.
Now as far as foreign aid, I went to those 10th amendment sites, and it repeats many of the ideas I have seen before and agree with to a reasonable extent. Then it becomes a matter of interpretation (and before I go on I take issues with the constitutionality of some acts too.) Two things come into play, first one of the quotes:
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.
The congress, for better or worse, represents will of the people. Pick nits but that allows some sway depending on the current needs. Is it abused, of course, now more than ever, but then it falls to the people to replace the SOBs. But I would not say that all foreign aid falls into that category. This brings me to another quote from one of the sites:
“The words “general Welfare” in the Taxing Clause refer expressly to the welfare of the people “of the United States.” This excludes the people of any foreign country.”
I would argue as would many conservatives that in a modern world using money to protect our trade and interests, even if it means helping the people of a foreign country, is good for our general welfare. We are not some isolated back water country like we were after the revolution, but a major if not the major player in international business. As a capitalist myself I have no problem with using the government in securing trade and resources. Indeed I think it is the best use of our money short of the military and the interstate highway system.
This leads me to one last thing. We did practice foreign aid before last century. The Barbary States intervention mentioned before is one example. The “recent” increase in such aid is due to the fact that we have progressively become more prosperous and also more international in our interest over the past century.
Taking you view of the constitution there are many federal bodies and acts that are illegal. The FBI is not in there, nor any of the cabinet positions. Many laws are not specified. Perhaps the powers granted the various branches of government do come into play. If not, then you have a lot of battles ahead to prove the unconstitutionality of these various constructs and acts.
I dont take issue with some of your ideas, indeed I agree with you more than you think. However I grow weary of the unconstitutional argument used by so many on both side of the isle. Everything in the end falls to we the people which even supersedes the Constitution. I find that the unconstitutional defense is a straw man that is letting us off the hook. If we dont like something scream its unconstitutional instead of making our representatives do their job. It is a true double edged sword.
So you approve that we cede more of what's left of our sovereignity to the UN too?
You'll defend the UN but not the guy who's believes in the Constitution. Nice.
Facts don't matter to the Paul bashers.
Because you're taking one single position of Paul (WOT) and painting him with a broad brush as a lunatic. I disagree with Paul on some of his foreign policy views but I certainly see this from his point of view. So instead of agreeing to disagree with the man you and the others call him a kook or other things usually reserved for liberals.
BTW, you're not fit to shine your screenname's shoes.
We no longer live in a world where sovereign nations recognize letters of marque and reprisal.
Congress can grant them all day long if it wants to, but it hasn't granted them in almost 200 years because they are no longer instruments that any other nation acknowledges.
The US hasn't recognized other countries' letters of marque and reprisal for almost 200 years.
If Ron Paul had any clue at all about anything, he'd know that.
“Congress can grant them all day long if it wants to, but it hasn’t granted them in almost 200 years because they are no longer instruments that any other nation acknowledges.”
Of course congress can. Article 1 section 8: “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; “
Mercenaries could legally search and destroy Bin Laden and his minions. This action is permitted by our Constitution.
Is our Constituion equally too “old school” for you as well?
It matters not that other nations do not recognize the letter, nor that we haven’t used it nor recognized them lately. Besides, the UN and Congress propose meaningless policy all the time. My question is, why shouldn’t we issue one for global terrorists? Seems reasonable to me.
I’ll wager this. Issue the letter, and I’ll bet for some bullions of gold, there are some mercenaries out there who can and would find Bin Laden.
What’s wrong with it?
Yes it does matter. It means that any such letters would be meaningless and provide their holders zero legal protection.
One might as write up one's own letters of marque and reprisal - they would have equal legal effectiveness both inside and outside the United States.
Ill wager this. Issue the letter, and Ill bet for some bullions of gold, there are some mercenaries out there who can and would find Bin Laden.
A $25M bounty - guaranteed by the US State Department - already exists on bin Laden's head and anyone is welcome to it.
My point: Ron Paul's argument that Congress, instead of authorizing war in Afghanistan, should have just issued letters of marque and reprisal is stupid.
Letters of marque and reprisal are no longer an instrument of international law, they have no standing anywhere, and there is already a bounty on bin Laden's head.
Ron Paul is not a serious interlocutor, but a distracting sideshow freak.
1. NATO invaded Yugoslavia (Kosovo is still a part of Yugoslavia. My former roommate was shipped to Bosnia after Dayton. Our troops are still on the ground there and the country they are occupying don’t want them there. You’re playing little semantic games, not discussing reality. US troops invaded Yugoslavia and I’m pretty sure most of the guys who signed up didn’t rush off to fight for NATO.
2. There are those in the UN who believe Pres. Bush violated international law. I don’t doubt they can play with reality using the same semantic tricks you use to make any fantasy seem “legally” or “technically” true.
3. That may not happen in the US (in the near future), but it has happened in other countries. Not only is it not impossible, but it’s a reality.
4. If the UN Charter is law, it’s not the highest law of the land. That was my point, in case it was lost on you.
5. “And Ron Paul’s policy is not supported by 99.53% of the electorate.” Indeed! And you have the legally conducted elections to show that your statement is true. Oh wait, you’re more interested in self-fabricated distorted “reality” supported by arguments only technically true if one looks at it a certain way.
No thanks. I think I’ll stick to reality.
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.