We the People -- The Buck Stops Here! (A follow-up on Ron Paul)

Capitol Hill ^ | Aug 31, 07 | JB Williams

[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

[DugwayDuke]

“herefore, a declaration of war is constitutional, but a force authorization is not.”

Does the Constitution identify a required format for a Declaration of War? Does it specify the content? It does not, therefore these are left to the Congress. Congress can call it a Declaration of War or a Force Resolution or any thing else it desires. The key is does it authorize the use of force to accomplish national objectives.

[DugwayDuke]

“The Constitution gives Congress explicitly enumerated powers, not unlimited plenary powers. If Congress had endless power, then why would the Framers have bothered to list its powers in the Constitution, one by one?”

Of course the Constitution grants only enumerated powers. The power to declare war is an enumerated power. It is also a plenary power since it is not limited. A power can be both enumerated and plenary. Use google and get a definition of plenary. Then show me in the Constitution where the Congression power to declare war is limited in any way.

[KevinDavis]

Looks like a lot of people still likes to live in 1776 world in the age of Nuclear weapons, Islamfacism, and other modern day threats..

[tpaine]

Our Constitution is designed to place limits on the powers of all levels of all governments in the USA.
The war powers of Congress are not defined in the document as bring unlimited or 'plenary'.

The Constitution gives Congress explicitly enumerated powers, not unlimited plenary powers. If Congress had endless power, then why would the Framers have bothered to list its powers in the Constitution, one by one??

Of course the Constitution grants only enumerated powers. The power to declare war is an enumerated power.
It is also a plenary power since it is not limited.

Round you go, stuck on a circular argument about 'definitions', -- because you will not admit that Congress is limited in power by other clauses of the Constitution.

A power can be both enumerated and plenary. Use google and get a definition of plenary. Then show me in the Constitution where the Congression power to declare war is limited in any way.

Round you go, -- Look, you admit at your post #281 that Congress is "-- authorize[d] the use of force to accomplish national objectives. --"

Thus, if a specific declaration of war could be proved to be working against our national [constitutionally enumerated] objectives, it would be invalid, - an unconstitutional use of Congressional power.

Can you understand that concept?

[MamaTexan]

Unless you can identify a limitation placed upon Congress in the Constitution, then you must accept that the power to declare war is plenary.

No, I 'must' accept no such thing. Defining a word doesn't bestow authority.

You have again failed to provide historical documentation of the Founders beliefs, and disregard the fact that IF they truly believed the war power was ‘plenary’ the documentation concerning that (supposedly) unlimited power would be abundant. They really weren't shy about offering their opinions.

YOU asserted Congress possessed the unlimited capacity to declare war, so it is up to YOU to prove your assertion.

I've already provided evidence to the contrary.

-----

Please identify the “restrictive (specification) clauses of the Constitution.” that limit the power to declare war.

The clause concerning the declaration of war is proceeded by:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations ;

-----

There is nothing in the Constitution identifying, granting, or extending any kind of right to a Letter of Marque or Reprisal. If you think otherwise, then identify the clause.

Um....

1) I've posted Story's take on the subject. As you lack his credentials, I do believe I will take his opinion over yours.

2) If there was NOT a right to remedy (reprisal) it wouldn't BE in the Constitution. It would be impossible to petition for a something that you NEVER had a right to in the first place.

-----

In this Examination, you’ll find the following quote: “That instrument has only provided affirmatively, that, “The Congress shall have power to declare War;” the plain meaning of which is that, it is the peculiar and exclusive province of Congress,...”

Hamilton discusses the fact a declaration of war is unnecessary if a foreign nation has already declared war on us...so what's your point?

BTW- Hamilton spent 3...count 'em THREE Federalist papers (#26, 27 & 28) discussing the authority of war.

The title of these papers?

The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered

Which leads to a rather logical question:

If the Founders believed the authority to declare war by Congress was an unlimited and ‘plenary’ power, why bother spending so much time and effort discussing it?

LOL!

[DugwayDuke]

“Round you go, stuck on a circular argument about ‘definitions’, — because you will not admit that Congress is limited in power by other clauses of the Constitution.”

Fine. Then list the other clauses that limit Congressional Power to Declare War. I tell you what, just list one clause that limits this congressional power.

BTW. This is an argument about definitions.

[DugwayDuke]

“The clause concerning the declaration of war is proceeded by:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”

This is completely irrelevent. My argument has been that congress has an unlimited power over the content and format, how it chooses, to declare war. The fact that this clause seems to limit the reasons why Congress may declare war is irrelvent as to HOW it declares war.

“1) I’ve posted Story’s take on the subject. As you lack his credentials, I do believe I will take his opinion over yours.”

Story’s take does not address whether this is a right or a priviledge.

“2) If there was NOT a right to remedy (reprisal) it wouldn’t BE in the Constitution. It would be impossible to petition for a something that you NEVER had a right to in the first place.”

Since most of the Constitution is concerned with the powers of the states and the various branches of the government, most of the Constitution doesn’t address ‘rights’. Individuals have ‘rights’. Branches have ‘powers’. BTW, you can ‘petition’ Congress for all sorts of things, not just rights.

“Hamilton discusses the fact a declaration of war is unnecessary if a foreign nation has already declared war on us...so what’s your point?”

The point is, according to Hamilton, “The Congress shall have power to declare War;” the plain meaning of which is that, it is the peculiar and exclusive province of Congress,...”. “Peculiar and exclusive province of Congress.” means that it’s up to Congress. No other branch can tell Congress HOW to declare war. That’s a ‘plenary power’.

“If the Founders believed the authority to declare war by Congress was an unlimited and ‘plenary’ power, why bother spending so much time and effort discussing it?”

Because they were trying to explain to the people how the Constitution worked and what were the specific enumerated powers of the various parts of the government. They weren’t talking to themselves, they were talking to the people who had not the opportunity to participate in the deliberations. Hamilton spent a lot of ink describing how Congress had the power to declare war and the executive had the power to wage war and the differences of those two powers.

The point I’ve been trying to make that is that Congress has the power and the authority to declare war. That power, THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR, is unlimited. Other powers of Congress may be limited, but HOW Congress chooses to DECLARE WAR is NOT. If Congress wants to put the words “Declaration of War” at the top of the document, that is up to Congress. If Congress wants to put the words “Authorization of Force” at the top of the document, that too is up to Congress. From a Constitutional powers perspective, either is equally valid and Constitutional.

You have made the claim that Letters of Marquis and Reprisal are the appropriate way to respond to terrorism. Please explain why these Letters would be effective. The question is not whether these Letters are a step short of war. The question is not whether they are a Constitutional Act. The question is why do you think they would be effective?

[MamaTexan]

The point I’ve been trying to make that is that Congress has the power and the authority to declare war. That power, THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR, is unlimited. Other powers of Congress may be limited, but HOW Congress chooses to DECLARE WAR is NOT. If Congress wants to put the words “Declaration of War” at the top of the document, that is up to Congress. If Congress wants to put the words “Authorization of Force” at the top of the document, that too is up to Congress. From a Constitutional powers perspective, either is equally valid and Constitutional.

The point you're trying to make is a branch of the federal government possesses an UNLIMITED power supposedly granted by a document that was expressly created to LIMIT federal power.

It has been well observed by one of the judges of the supreme court of the United States, that "in this country every man sustains a twofold political capacity: one in relation to the state, and another in relation to the United States. In relation to the state, he is subject to various municipal regulations, founded upon the state constitution and policy, which do not affect him in his relation to the United States: For the constitution of the union is the source of all the jurisdiction of the national government; so that the departments of that government, can never assume any power, that is not expressly granted by that instrument, nor exercise a power, in any other manner than is there prescribed." This is, indeed, a short, clear, and comprehensive exposition of the principles of a limited government, founded upon compact between sovereign and independent states.
St. George Tucker 1803.

----

Does Congress has the authority to declare war?
Yes.

Does Congress has the authority to declare war in any manner it wishes?
No.

-----

The Constitution prescribes the manner:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 - To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

Declare. Not a 'resolve', not 'ordain', not 'codify'... DECLARE.

****

The Constitution enumerates the purpose:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To provide for the common Defense..... not the common Offense

-----

You have made the claim that Letters of Marquis and Reprisal are the appropriate way to respond to terrorism.

I made no such claim. I merely gave historical documentation to what letters of Marquis and Reprisals were.

--------

Again, please find the words 'unlimited' or 'plenary' in the Constitution or provide ANY substantiating evidence that Congress has the ability to declare war in any manner it chooses.

Your constant: "You're wrong because I say you are!" mantra is getting rather old.

[takenoprisoner]

It’s not a mental illness to defend the constitution. Many a veteran on this site, including myself, have taken a solemn oath to suppoprt and defend the Constitution of These United States...to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. Many, like myself, took that oath seriously.

Your position that the Constitution is a living breathing document is progessively liberal. Let me quote you:

“As far as ignoring the Constitution, it has been done more than once. Does that suck, perhaps and perhaps not depending on the exact issue.”

This little tidbit told me all that I needed to know regarding your allegiance, as well as your political leanings toward progressive socialism. All at the expense of our Constitution...the rule of law, the very foundation upon which this nation stands from which all subsequent laws must flow. The very document I swore to support and defend.

No, defense of the Constitution is not insane. It is a solemnn obligation for many...self included.

Now can people whose allegiance’s lie outside the confines of the Constitution be considered traitors to the document? For those who have taken the oath, I believe it worthy of consideration.

If one never gave the oath, never offered his/her life to the service of this nation, then they have no real understanding of what it actually means to do so. Otherwise, you would not be labelling allegiance to it a form of absolutism.

I commend you for helping veterans. One sure way of helping them is to learn to support what they have themselves sworn to support and defend. It sure as heck ‘ain’t no’ living breathing document. It’s the law of the land. Too many Americans have fought and died for any American to take our Constitution lightly.

You, ejonesie22, spend a lot of time here bashing a true Constitutionalist. No, you are not the only one. But you are one of the more outspoken ones. As such, you are open to be perceived as someone opposed to the Constitution when you go about bashing a congressman who always casts his vote founded on Constitutional principle.

Moreover, your offering, as quoted above, is remarkably revealing.

[tpaine]

I see you've answered 'Duke' on his word-gaming claim that:

"-- THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR, is unlimited. Other powers of Congress may be limited, but HOW Congress chooses to DECLARE WAR is NOT. --"

It's amusing to note that he previously made the flat out claim of an "unlimited" congressional power, -- but now modifies that to "HOW" they choose to "DECLARE", which is a point never really in contention.

Well done.  

[MamaTexan]

Well done.

:-)

[ejonesie22]

Then for you I put forth one question.

Who has the higher authority, the Constitution or the Divine Entity who inspired the men who wrote it?

As incredible a document as the Constitution is, and the fact that it lives even today as the basis for all our laws means it is a truly inspired work, on that weaves together all other documents and ideas that this nation hold dear, it does not supersede the Creator of those who created it.

I go back to my simple point. God has given man certain rules and guidelines to live by, period. Of those defending ones family is one of the most important. He tells us he has dominion over Earthly Princes and laws.

Given this simple fact, where should I place my allegiance when some one wishes to use The Constitution in asking me to abdicate my responsibility to God.

Defend the Constitution, that is something I have done for years, and shall always do so with absolute fidelity. I also have absolute love and respect for those who do it in both word and deed, and more over, as has happened to a few good friends, with life and limb. But worship it as a replacement for the One True God, place it above he who created us, I don’t think so. That is wrong and no changing of entries on the Declaration of Independence nor bending of any amendments will convince me otherwise. That was not what those men envision 200 plus years ago. they knew their role and ours as men with our laws and God's

One last thing, the fact we are still using it, that fact it can be amended makes the Constitution a living breathing piece of our on going history. It was not locked away in 1791 never to be looked at or challenged. Seventeen amendments and innumerable challenges have come since its inception. You may not like the fact that people have certain interpretations of the contents, neither do I when it runs counter to my beliefs, but it does not change the fact that it lives in us today and there have been times that it has been bypassed, some for out betterment, and some for our detriment. That is a simple historical fact. I actually find that anyone who considers it a "dead " document to be showing a good amount of at least misunderstanding of the documents role in this nation.

I gladly accept that I may be one of the more voracious voices on this topic. I am no social liberal, but I am a pragmatist and a follower of God. I place in him my life, not the state, even if it is the greatest on Earth. God has out lived them all.

[tpaine]

Your position that the Constitution is a living breathing document is progessively liberal.

More 'position' from the living-breathing contingent.

Paul’s supporters disappointed by results
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1890308/posts?q=1&;page=207

[DugwayDuke]

“It’s amusing to note that he previously made the flat out claim of an “unlimited” congressional power, — but now modifies that to “HOW” they choose to “DECLARE”, which is a point never really in contention.”

Really? The relevent part of this discussion has been about whether Congress had to issue a Declaration of War in order to Declare War. Are you saying this was not a discussion about HOW Congress was to exercise this power?

[DugwayDuke]

“Again, please find the words ‘unlimited’ or ‘plenary’ in the Constitution or provide ANY substantiating evidence that Congress has the ability to declare war in any manner it chooses.”

Would it be fair to say that your argument is that unless the actual words ‘plenary’ or ‘unlimited’ appear in the Constitution in conjuction with an enumerated power, then that power is not ‘plenary’ or ‘unlimited’? Since I’m willing to stipulate, for the record, that neither of these words appear in the Constitution so are you saying that no branch of governement has ‘plenary’ or ‘unlimited powers’ with regard to any power enumerated or otherwise?

Would it be putting words in your mouth to say that your position is that since the Constitution does not explicitly say that Congress can choose the method to declare war, then it must actually use the words “Declaration of War”?

[DugwayDuke]

My apologies, but I forgot to ask one question about your statement: “To provide for the common Defense..... not the common Offense”

I’m not quite sure what your meaning of “Offense” is. Do you mean ‘pre-emptive”?

[listenhillary]

Thank you for your service.

Voting for Ron Paul who has no chance of being elected as a Republican presidential candidate brings to mind the liberal mindset where results don’t matter, it’s the thought that counts. Don’t construe this as me calling you a liberal. I am not doing so.

Protecting the constitution would be served more by electing constitutional abiding candidates to the state and federal legislatures. Gambling your political fortune on a single roll of the dice is never a wise move. Leaping farther than you are capable, will leave you standing in the ditch.

RP is unelectable on a national level.

The Democrats while they are stupid on many levels, know politics and they took notice when they got beat by Republicans making the defense of marriage a national issue. They have raised the bar and are out for blood. A split in the Republican party falls right into their game plan. They will take full advantage and will do what they can to widen the split.

Look closely at those groups who say they stand with Ron Paul. Not all are interested so much seeing Ron Paul elected as much as they wish the Republican party to be split.

I just hope that the puritan Republicans and Paulistinians realize what they face with a split party.

[tpaine]

Who has the higher authority, the Constitution or the Divine Entity who inspired the men who wrote it?

No doubt about it, in your spiritual life, -- we can see that the Divine Entity you believe in has the highest authority.

And possibly, - the men who wrote our Constitution also believed that concept. - Tho many were said to be 'freethinkers'.

However, -- in our day to day business and political life, the Constitution is our Law of the Land.

You've mentioned "defending ones family", - how is our Constitution stopping you from that goal?

[billbears]

Voting for Ron Paul who has no chance of being elected as a Republican presidential candidate brings to mind the liberal mindset where results don’t matter, it’s the thought that counts

Indeed...

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."--John Quincy Adams

So we should toss out principle for popularity and party. Gotcha..

I just hope that the puritan Republicans and Paulistinians realize what they face with a split party.

I don't care what happens with whose party. The Framers did not intend for us to be focused on party and Washington even warned against it. But yet Republicans today would have us toss the principle that we are voting for who best represents our views so that the 'right' party can win....

[listenhillary]

From the linked article that started this thread.

If you want to see America become a “police state" in a heartbeat, with American troops carrying out the same types of missions on American streets that they are currently carrying out on the streets of Baghdad, you are on the right track with an isolationist view of how to deal with this very real threat.

No intelligence or security expert in the world will tell you any differently. In fact they have shouted this very warning over and over, yet Americans who are not listening will be just as shocked if and when that day arrives, as they were on the morning of September 11th a short six years ago.