Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bamahead; SJackson; Equality 7-2521
He felt we shouldn’t be involved in foreign wars unless it directly impacted our security or we were brought in by direct provocation.

...or, if you want to be technical about the Constitutionality of it, it could also be something that Congress has defined as an 'offense against the laws of nations' that is in our interest to punish (Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 10)

64 posted on 08/09/2007 11:38:05 AM PDT by mnehring (Ron Paul is as much of a Constitutionalist as Fred Phelps is a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: mnehrling

Right, but Congress has to formally define that specific offense, and then declare war based on them, which they really should have done with the Taliban regime, and also Iraq.

I certainly don’t have my boxers in a wad over that particular technicality, but I also don’t want to see it become a habit.

Why didn’t they with Iraq? They should’ve. But some of those weasels wanted an ‘out’ in case it went south. Which is pretty disturbing - and says a lot about our ‘leaders’ these days - ie: they don’t want to be committed on paper to finishing what they start, in case it becomes unpopular and affects their electability. Same can be said about a myriad of other issues as well...


71 posted on 08/09/2007 11:51:07 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; The majority are satisfied with a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson