Mascot for Haldol:
Posted on 08/31/2007 6:16:40 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
The first truth we must find is a way to swallow this - we have exactly the government we elected!
Our Republican President has a public approval rating hovering around 30% and our Democrat congress has an approval rating down around 20%. Clearly, we don’t think much of our government, but we elected them and what does that say about us?
(snip)
In my last column titled “Ron Paul—A Liberal-tarian, not a Conservative," I demonstrated how easy it is to attack any politician on his alleged voting record, demonize an entire group on the basis of a few in that group who are willing to use unethical tactics to promote their allegedly ethical candidate, and cause a firestorm of political banter, both pro and con, without ever really getting to the heart of the subject at hand.
Welcome to American politics circa 2007
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhillcoffeehouse.com ...
Dr. Paul's ACU rating for 2006 is 76 and lifetime 82.26.
Not terribly impressive from a conservative point of view. Even McCain has a lifetime rating of 82.3.
Mascot for Haldol:
BABY!
Nice try, but not at all the point.
1st - America at all times, has not only a right but a responsibility to defend its interest here or anywhere else in the world.
2nd - The constitution gives congress the power to “declare war” against another sovereign nation. But it does NOT require congress to “declare war” against a nation before introducing troops into action.
3rd - The constitution also give sole authority to command troops into battle to the Commander-in-Chief. There’s a simple reason for this. The Commander-in-Chief’s FIRST duty of office is to protect and defend the nation he represents and its citizens.
4th - The War Powers Act of 1973 (passed via constitutional process) reaffirms the Presidents authority to order troops to battle without even gaining authorization from congress, anytime America has been attacked and America has been attacked on numerous occasions leading up to military response.
5th - Although the constitution does not require anything more than “advice and consent” of congress, which largely relates to over-sight and funding of a mission, Bush in fact did seek congressional authority to use force to “liberate” Iraq and received such authorization by broad margin, not once but on three separate occasions.
All of which means, what we are doing in Iraq is indeed “constitutional” as all constitutional laws were followed in the process of going to war.
Now, on the basis of your disinformation, every military action since WWII was “unconstitutional”, since congress did not “declare war” in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Bosnia or anywhere else since WWII.
Last, as we “liberated” Iraq, and did not “invade and conquer” Iraq, we are not “at war” with the Iraqi people (nation). Therefore, a “declaration of war” against that nation would have been inappropriate. We deposed a brutal dictator that the Iraqi people had been asking us to depose for years.
You people who want to act like you know what you’re talking about, then prove that you don’t, kill me.
You are ideologically blind and delusional.
And THAT’s what makes you and those like you, a danger to every American!
Good idea!
Exactly, 76, not 100...
I thought his record was spotless? That’s what his supporters keep saying.
Are you aware that there are others in the race with better than a 76 rating?
If a ideology expects us to respect its sovereignty (i.e. Dictionary.com: 4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative.), shouldn't it also respect our sovereignty as a nation? And if a ideology goes to war against us (9/11), don't we in turn have the right to go to war against it?
The Constitution gives us the right, no the responsibility, to defend ourselves. Nowhere does it explicitly state this right can only be exercised against a sovereign nation and not an ideology. I never met one of the founding Fathers, but I believe they'd find this concept laughable. After all, weren't many of our immigrants at the time, especially those who migrated here before America was formed, escaping an ideology of sorts? Do you think our founding Fathers would have hesitated declaring war against such an ideology should it have the ability to attack at that time?
I can't find "the question" on this thread, -- much less any isolationists who have run for cover.
Can you pose that question again?
No, it IS the point.
-----
1st - America at all times, has not only a right but a responsibility to defend its interest here or anywhere else in the world.
That's rationalization, not justification.
The only thing the US has the responsibility to defend is our own territory..or property WE own.
Justifying our overseas actions by saying were there because of 'our interests' is a bogus argument.
The United States has a responsibility to follow our own laws.
-----
2nd - The constitution gives congress the power to “declare war” against another sovereign nation.
True, by submitting a Declaration of War, or a notice of intent to the other Nation that we are at war with that nation.
-----
But it does NOT require congress to “declare war” against a nation before introducing troops into action.
BZZZT! Wrong answer. To do so violates the Law of Nations.
Let me put this simply:
Government derives its power from the people, yet,as individuals, we have no right to interfere with someone else's business.
If we, as individuals do not possess that right of interference, where did the government get it from?
-----
The Commander-in-Chief’s FIRST duty of office is to protect and defend the nation he represents and its citizens.
The CIC has the authority to defend the nation, but the current situation is an offensive measure, not a defensive one.
-----
Bush in fact did seek congressional authority to use force to “liberate” Iraq and received such authorization by broad margin, not once but on three separate occasions.
Please find the word 'liberate' in the Constitution under the Powers of the Executive.
-----
The War Powers Act of 1973 (passed via constitutional process) reaffirms the Presidents authority to order troops to battle without even gaining authorization from congress, anytime America has been attacked and America has been attacked on numerous occasions leading up to military response.
When America has been attacked by another nation, not by a bunch of lunatic adherents to a perverted cult.
-----
Now, on the basis of your disinformation, every military action since WWII was “unconstitutional”, since congress did not “declare war” in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Bosnia or anywhere else since WWII.
With uppermost respect to all the branches of the military, yes.
I would consider that a true statement. I can do no less and remain true to the Constitution as I understand it.
-----
You people who want to act like you know what you’re talking about, then prove that you don’t, kill me.
Pot calling kettele ALERT!
What kills me is the fact you haven't proven anything, yet I am the one found at fault. I, at least, posted historical sources.
But YOU.....nope! Can't be bothered.
You just run around telling everyone how wrong they are.
----
You are ideologically blind and delusional.
Name calling. The last resort of someone with no logical argument.
How childish.
-----
And THAT’s what makes you and those like you, a danger to every American!
(snort)
If opinions were dangerous, FR would be shut down for being an arsenal.
-----
Let me ask you one, very simple question;
Do you believe the Constitution is a living document?
Yes...in our own country.
One has to wonder why the government is so busy justifying the 'war' while leaving our own country unprotected. Protecting your base camp is a basic, military strategy.
Oh, yes, we don't need to do that, we're fighting an 'ideological' war.
***
Do you think our founding Fathers would have hesitated declaring war against such an ideology should it have the ability to attack at that time?
You really need to read up on history, particularly the Barbary pirates.
Why don't you try reading the sources that I posted or do some research on the Law of Nations.
----
I never met one of the founding Fathers, but I believe they'd find this concept laughable.
Please do not presume to know what the Founders thought. Unless you can back it up with a source of some kind, you're just blowing hot air.
MamaTexan responds:
When America has been attacked by another nation, not by a bunch of lunatic adherents to a perverted cult.
Government derives its power from the people, yet,as individuals, we have no right to interfere with someone else's business.
If we, as individuals do not possess that right of interference, where did the government get it from?
Good reasoning.
Does Congress have the power to authorize:
"- The War Powers Act of 1973 -" which gives Presidents the authority to order troops to battle without even gaining authorization from congress, -- anytime America has been attacked?
Certainly, we can all agree any president has that power in an emergency, -- correct?
But can wars or 'police actions' be fought for years on this basis?
-- That's the constitutional question.
The problem with (b) is that it's unconstitutional.
In 1945 I would agree with you in as much as I would pitch the whole Constitutional argument.
However (b) now goes a long way to insure something even more basic that what is contained in the Constitution, something that was the basis for every thing the founding fathers worked for including said documents.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These bastards want us dead and are seeking ways to do it more effectively everyday. As cute as it is to say we are at war with an ideology, the plain fact is there are nut cases with desires and intent that are real living breathing people, with the arms and legs, feet and hands to take action on their threats. They have done so.
Missiles and madmen have much less respect for sovereignty than we do. To be proactive or reactive, that is our choice. I fear limiting it to reactive will result in a radioactive situation one day. I choose life...
I’m happy to...
There are only two forms of defense.
a) Hunker down, fortify the fort and wait for the attack.
b) Pursue the enemy before they can attack.
Which one do you support and why?
Oh? Where is it stated in the Constitution that we may wage war only on our own soil?
One has to wonder why the government is so busy justifying the 'war' while leaving our own country unprotected. Protecting your base camp is a basic, military strategy.
The government is so busy 'justifying' the war because so many like yourself are so busy 'unjustifying' the war. As to leaving our country unprotected, that I agree with you on (or haven't you read my tagline?).
You really need to read up on history, particularly the Barbary pirates....Why don't you try reading the sources that I posted or do some research on the Law of Nations.
I did. Did you? The article you linked to explained how the war against the Barbary Pirates could, in some ways, be compared to our current War on Terror.
As the article states, the Pirates carried out "Battles [that] raged on both land and sea, and religious piracy flourished." The article then goes on to explain how, then as now, the whole piracy issue was tied to Islamic fundamentalism, and the goal of all Islam to dominate, indeed overthrow the West.
However, the real crux of the article comes in the next-to-last paragraph: "Whether “insurgents” are fighting in Iraq or “rebels” and “militants” are skirmishing in Chechnya or Hamas “activists” are detonating themselves in Israel, Westerners seem unwilling to bring attention to the most salient feature of all these groups: They claim to be acting in the name of Islam.". The article isn't one of isolationism but one of understanding exactly where our enemy is coming from, and not making the same mistakes (trying to make treaties with nations who harbor ideological warriors) of the past.
Please do not presume to know what the Founders thought. Unless you can back it up with a source of some kind, you're just blowing hot air.
But your linked article proves my point. Our Fathers DID wage war with an ideology. They simply didn't understand it at the time.
Now, please. Take your patronizing attitude and go elsewhere. I need have no further discourse with someone as unsavvy as you.
In response, I give you:
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 1829
But it must be remembered, that we may be involved in a war without a formal declaration of it. In the year 1800, we were engaged in a qualified, but public, war with France; qualified, because it was only waged on the high seas--public, because the whole nation was involved in it. It was founded on the hostile measures authorized by congress against France, by reason of her unjust aggressions on our commerce--yet there was no declaration of war. In such a war we may also be involved by the conduct of the executive, without the participation of the legislature. The intercourse with foreign nations, the direction of the military and naval power, being confided to the president, his errors or misconduct may draw hostilities upon us. No other restraint appears to exist, than that of withholding the supplies to carry it on, which indeed congress can in no case grant beyond the term of two years.
I respectfully submit that the only time a war can be initiated by the President of the United States without the authorization of Congress is if that war is conducted on the high seas, and the fact the action in 1800 was directly related to the nation's commerce, as per Article I, Section 8 Clause 3.
---
What say you?
So your choice is to allow our government to exercise an unauthorized power across the globe because you're scared???
Sorry bud, but that's just no rational argument.
The rational argument would be keeping them out of here....FIRST!
It's something we have every right to do, self defense is a natural right. Yet it is not being done. Instead billions of dollars and thousands of lives are going overseas...for what?
So we can impose our own brand of (gulp) democracy.
----
I respect the right of my fellow Americans to make their own personal choices, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
Look, the Constitution is a procedural manual for the federal government.
The Law of Nations acknowledges that there are 'rules' to war.
A Declaration of War. (also called a Notice of Intent)
This must state the reasons for War.
The Declaration of Independence was a Notice of Intent to England that we considered ourselves a sovereign nation.
----
Our authority to exercise our sovereignty ends where another nations beings....period.
Sorry you find the word 'sovereignty' so hard to understand.
----
But your linked article proves my point. Our Fathers DID wage war with an ideology. They simply didn't understand it at the time.
RODFLMAO! It is you who do not understand, and you missed the first point made in the article.
The 'war' against the Barbary pirates was waged on the high seas....not the LAND.
-----
Now, please. Take your patronizing attitude and go elsewhere. I need have no further discourse with someone as unsavvy as you.
(tap, tap)
Is this thing on?
I am getting such a kick out of this argument it is not even funny...
The founders of our nation were the geniuses of their time. The one thing they knew was that there were limits to their knowledge.
The very fact that the Constitution is amendable makes it a living document. The fact that you are here arguing constitutional principles on this very forum, over 200 years after its creation makes the Constitution a living document. The fact that it is open to interpretation, whether we like it or not, via the mechanisms of the courts and legislative bodies of our government make it a living document.
From almost day one, the leaders of this nation have used both the Constitution AND common sense to solve the problems, and take advantage of the opportunities, of their time.
I appreciate the history of this great nation and as one who spent the better part of his college career as a history major I can tell you that there are things about the way our system operates that goes beyond the high school civics class. The founders left it to future great men to do the right things for their time, left them with a document and principals to guide and advise but not limit the greatness of this nation by locking the door on changes to that document and laid out a system that allows us to take actions as we see fit to again, guarantee those very words that start this adventure on the American continent.
I fully believe, after recovering from the grievous shock that mankind had the ability and desire to build such terrible weapons as we have today, that the founders would be the first to stare at us with disbelieve that we were not aggressively pursuing those who wish to destroy their creation.
“Do you believe the Constitution is a living document?”
No, not beyond it’s ability to be updated via the amendment process. But I also believe that the founder “wrote” exactly what they intended to right and that courts have “amended” the written constitution by way of unwritten broad interpretations at odds with all we know about the founders.
The constitution gives congress alone the power to legislate. But the judicial branch has been legislating from the bench longer than I’ve been alive (47yrs).
Congress DID however, via the constitutional process, legislate the War Powers Act which reaffirms the Presidents authority to command our military.
Congress also, via constitutional process, authorized use of military force in every use of military force since WWII (except Kosovo) without “decalring war” against the nations. This could be a result of the fact that in none of these cases, were we “at war” with these nations, but rather acting in defense of the peoples of those nations, against brutal dictators.
You are simply wrong on all of this, but You will not be convinced on this thread in public. You can’t afford to be.
Do some real homework on the issues.
We are in Iraq as a matter of “national security”. You can ignore or excuse this fact. But you can’t change it!
Don’t think it can’t happen.
How do you propose to GURANTEE that determined mean don’t get into our borders.
You can’t.
And to answer your question, you are damn Skippy I am scared. Only a fool wouldn’t be in 2007...
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.