Posted on 08/31/2007 6:16:40 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
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?
My first post to you at #254 was an objection to your claim:
The Congressional Power to declare war is a plenary power, one without limit. Congress can declare war in any way it wishes and against any one it wishes.
Congress has limitless power? BS.
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?
You've answered that question [amusingly enough] by modifying that flat "unlimited", -- to "HOW" they choose to "DECLARE", which was a point never really in contention.
Why can't you admit it?
Speculation from a partisan whose view is 'stay the course'. Discounted immediately. Let's see where 'stay the course' has gotten us the past 80+ years. Interventionist policy has allowed the rise of Nazism (no intervention into WWI, no 14 points, no place for Hitler), the rise of Communism (again intervention into WWI and Wilson's insistence Russia stay in the fray most likely allowed the rise of Lenin), and countless deaths over the ensuing decades fixing said problems (in the case of communism many of those were pointless and either stalemates or outright losses)
The point is you can't claim this is 'isolationism of the 1930s' because Wilson helped to cause the problem in the first place. It was our responsibility to fix it (WWII). In the case of the Middle East it is not our responsibility. Even Ronald Reagan saw the difficulties and our necessity to stay out of it. Islam as a radical religion has been with us for well over 1000 years. And every couple hundred years a Western power sees that it can 'fix' it this time. And every couple hundred years a Western power marches right back out realizing it's an issue that can't be fixed.
I'm through playing word games and doing your homework.
You're so smart, you figure it out.
So your response is to stay at home if your candidate is not the nominee?
What “practical” solution do you propose?
“Who has the higher authority, the Constitution or the Divine Entity who inspired the men who wrote it?”
Our creator endowed us with unalienable rights. Our Constitution is the instrument thru which our Divine Creator seeks to protect those rights. Don’t mess with it.
“...where should I place my allegiance when some one wishes to use The Constitution in asking me to abdicate my responsibility to God.”
I find that incredible. You’re gonna have to link me to that one.
I find no fault with your order: God, family, then country. However, I also recognize that without this country and it’s Constitution, and the Americans who have sacrificed their lives for this country and it’s Constitution, there’s no telling which religion my family and I might be forced to worship.
In the interim, in this land, men have decided upon a rule of law known as the Constitution. I believe as you, that it was inspired by the Divine Creator. That’s another reason to disallow liberally progressive socialists from messin’ with it...ie passing legislation in defiance of it.
Only one man in congress today holds true to our Constitution, that even you admit was inspired by our Divine Creator. Yet you spend hours here trashing him.
In some circles, that sort of indulgence is considered the embodiment of hypocrisy.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t trash a congressman who stands firmly upon the Constitution, and then try to argue you really do support the Constitution.
But...but...he was only an ENT for Air Force pilots. Nevermind that Paul could have died just as easily as if he was on the battlefield. The same FReepers who rightly defended Bush for serving in the TANG for being a measly "fighter pilot" get to display their gross hypocrisy on Paul and act like his military service meant zilch. Absolutely pathetic.
I haven't seen that. It doesn't mean it hasn't happened on FR. It is wrong for them to do this.
Look what I just came across:
Middle East Stabilization
Pub. L. 85–7, §§ 1–6, Mar. 9, 1957, 71 Stat. 5, set out as chapter 24A (§ 1961 et seq.) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, authorizes the President to provide economic and military assistance, and, if he determines it necessary, to use armed forces under certain circumstances to maintenance of national independence in the Middle East.
-----
And the president in 1957 was....Dwight D. Eisenhower
If the GOP establishment keeps dissing Paul and his supporters, they're going to stay home or write in Paul's name in the general. You don't think Paul's supporters aren't aware that they're being pissed on by the establishment? Please.
Real nice strategy there, trash Paul and his supporters but hope they vote for the nominee in the general.
I don't care if FReepers criticize Paul on his foreign policy. But on abortion and his military service - posts should be yanked.
Maybe they are tying to get RP supporters to see that Ron Paul is unelectable?
If Jim Robinson is the GOP establishment, I stand with him.
Russia
China
USA
What is the question?
Don’t you think it would make better sense to court Paul rather than trash him? Paul is a dangerous candidate. All he has to do is run 3rd party and completely screw the GOP over. Then what?
You'd think they'd be scurrying to outline any similarities between their favored candidate and Dr. Paul, wouldn't you?
----
'Big tent'....yeah, right.
You could surely look at my entire posting history and find a couple of examples that could be viewed as trashing Ron Paul.
I have gone out of my way in attempt to keep things civil. Ron Paul will not stand the media and Democrat onslaught. If he is a constitutionalist as everyone is telling me, he MUST stand by his convictions and end all unconstitutional spending by the US government.
I know how dangerous and seductive Socialism is. I HATE Socialism, but the American voter doesn’t.
I want everything possible done to stop socialism and turn it around. Nominating RP as the Republican candidate doesn’t slow or stop socialism. Writing in his name doesn’t stop socialism. Staying home doesn’t stop socialism.
Bush hasn’t done much better and maybe the (R) nominee may not be an improvement, but in choosing between something or nothing, I’ll take something.
All the talk by the left of Bush not leaving power is pretty much projection in my opinion. Dem’s in charge of the Presidency and subsequent judicial appointments will guarantee they will never be out of power again.
Results do matter.
Some may argue RP is electable.
There is one particular group I associate with RP. RP was one of only FOUR members of congress who supported the nomination of Ronald Reagan in 1976. The man has a niche for detecting righteousness.
Four years later I registered to vote as a Republican to vote for Ronald Reagan. Still at it today, but sorely disappointed in the current field. Especially since julieannie, a rabid socialist, is the main contender for the republican party. If this is to be the case, perhaps it's time for a split.
You now want the Founding Fathers and their work to fit a your view of the modern world.
How liberal of you...
That explains much about your views. You indeed have replaced the Divine with the work of man, which was not as it was intended to be.
Not sure what you mean by 'practical'. You don't understand. The intent of the Framers was that we vote for the candidate that represents our views at the national level, not for a party. Ron Paul represents my views. None of the other candidates do. So why should I make a 'practical' choice to vote for someone I don't agree with? Just to forward the party? Is that the intent of the Framers? If Rep. Paul is not the candidate, I will most likely write in his name as he would still be the person that best represents my views.
Of course I'm not sure I see the wisdom of allowing the general populace, who allows emotion to effect their vote, to elect the highest office in the nation either.
I think you may find were are not so far a part except on one major issue. Of course it is a big one.
“What “practical” solution do you propose?”
The argument becomes can one man like RP make a difference? The answer is yes. To believe to the contrary, one would have to believe no other single individual in all of history made any difference whatsoever.
Whatever unfolds in this electoral process, no one can argue RP has not already made a remarkable difference. No candidate in the field, be they republican or democrat, can match his Constitutionally principled voting record. NOT ONE!
Moreover, his lone stance to defend our Constitution in Congress has made him a hero to many. His existence, and his voting record are not fantasy legends captured in ancient folklore. They are now, and they are real. RP represents the stuff from which real Americans are molded.
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.