Posted on 07/18/2007 9:32:48 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070718/POLITICS01/707180319/1022/POLITICS
Seems more than a little trollish for you to just continue to assert a position without any backing material.
Like this:
Why Won't Congress Declare War?
Two weeks ago, during a hearing in the House International Relations committee, I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq. The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration. Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is- a war- and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war. Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election later if the war goes badly. There is always congressional "support" for a popular war, but the politicians want room to maneuver if the public later changes its mind. So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded "authorizations" that they can back away from easily if necessary.
It’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations 25 times, yet does not mention the Constitution once. Congress has allowed itself to be bypassed completely, even though much is made of the President’s willingness to consult some legislative leaders about the war. The real negotiations took place between the Bush administration and the UN, replacing debate in the people’s house. By transferring its authority to declare war to the President and ultimately the UN, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American people.
Already the administration has sought to gain favor with the UN by pledging hundreds of millions of tax dollars to UNESCO. UNESCO is the anti-American "educational" arm of the UN, an organization from which President Reagan heroically removed us in 1984. Now we find ourselves rejoining the agency to soften UN resistance to our plans in Iraq.
I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions. America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. If Congress believes war is justified, it should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors.
Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand the Constitution. One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed, while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be "frivolous." I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it.
When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and victory is elusive. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war.
Now... how is what you are saying NOT slander?
Name calling just makes your arguments less credible.
That’s according to your slanderous spin.
Post some criticisms and we can debate them. Right now, you can’t even get what he actually said correct.
It shouldn’t be?
More sense in one post than has come from you all week.
Accurate description is not “name calling”.
Perhaps you misunderstand how letters of marque and reprisal work.
One does not "serve" the letters to another party.
One carries them.
This is the scenario for which these letters were originally designed: England and Spain, say, are at war or not on good terms. England issues letters of marque and reprisal to privateers, authorizing them to attack Spanish ships and capture Spanish citizens. An authorized privateer spots a Spanish ship off the coast of France. They seize the ship. The French authorities demand to know what is going on and what entitles these Englishmen to attack France's allies in French waters.
The privateer produces the letters he is carrying, showing that he is authorized to do so by the government of England and that, although a private individual, he is acting by English authority.
The French then have to decide whether to imprison a representative of the English government.
If he was purely a private citizen, the privateer would have been thrown in chains by the French and charged with piracy. But because he holds letters, it is now a international incident which has diplomatic repercussions. The French have to let him go with his booty, or the French ambassador is going to have to explain to the English government why one of their agents carrying out authorized business was interfered with.
We are authorized to send private individuals to do this, and those individuals may do so without fear of being prosecuted by our country. The other country will obviously not recognize it as legal.
No country has ever recognized letters of marque and reprisal issued against it as legally valid. The value of the letters was that other countries would not treat holders as pirates or interefere with them.
Who cares? It’s end of story. Their stuff is gone, and there isn’t a thing they can do about it unless they want to come, fight, and lose even more stuff.
So you concede that if no one recognizes letters of marque and reprisal it is a pointless exercise to issue them.
Of course we are not obligated to respect letters of marque served upon our own interests. That would be ridiculous. Our military and law enforcement are permitted, if not obligated, to engage anyone who tries.
Which is the position that every country takes and has always taken.
I repeat: letters of marque and reprisal serve no purpose today, they are not a substitute for military deployment, and they are completely redundant in the presence of large monetary bounties as an inducement for private citizens to join the hunt.
Slander is a vary fast and loose term in politics and campaigns.
Usually its called when someone is backed into a corner...
Sounds spooky the way you put it.
I doubt that it is anything close.
Is it a natural marriage for "anti-Free Trade"ers and "Blame America" people?
Would not being considered to be of “Rock Star” status require that RP be able to garner at least some percentage in polls? At least one percent? Seems to me that “Rock Stars” have a following. Other then those here on FR and on DU, where’s RP’s followers which place him in that status? Just curious.
So he’s a drunk cocaine user?
That explains everything! Thanks.
Didn't know that the local chief dog catcher was known as President!!
Apparently, you wouldn’t know about the surrender monkeys that actually exist, and what they’ve been doing, or you would be aware exactly how sinister their plans are.
Instead, you’d rather attack someone who is the closest Constitutionalist running, and have this site forbid discussion and information about such a person.
That’s what’s “spooky”.
Yep, but I'm having fun at their expense.
You can't take away what Ron Paul has said no matter how much they try to deny or divert. It is over for Ron Paul's GOP candidacy, and I'm enjoying the flame out.
They were issued precisely because countries that were third parties to any conflict between the issuer of the letters and the country they were issued against would respect them.
They are no longer issued because third parties do not legally acknowledge them any more.
but to authorize one’s own citizens privately to undertake the forceful reclamation of property.
Letters of marque were never to "reclaim" property, but to seize the property of an enemy.
Of course, occasionally a letter holder would seize back a ship that had been seized from one of their own countrymen before, but that was not the intent of the letters.
Again, issuing letters was not always a pointless exercise. But is now and has been for 151 years.
A cash bounty is a far greater incentive than letters of marque and reprisal which do no one any good.
And all you’re capable of doing is mischaracterizing and fabricating what Ron Paul actually said, and what his actual positions are.
Is what you posted, the transcripts of the GOP debate? Is it also the statement he made when he propagated a "Gulf of Tonkin" conspiracy?
If not, then you are thoroughly confused.
However, I recognize that you are attempting to employ a diversionary tactic to steer away from Ron Paul's OTHER words that you do not wish to address.
Can't blame you since you have so much emotional investment in this nut-ball.
you and your ilk are who are “propagating the Gulf of Tonkin” conspiracy falsely against Ron Paul.
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.