Posted on 09/20/2007 6:40:58 PM PDT by Petronski
Over the last two days The Oregon Poll was seen by almost 400 "unique visitors," most of them in support of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. The majority of these people came from these two links on the web.
ronpaulforums.com
stormfront.org
What additional powers does a president have in war times that are not explicitly authorized by Congress?
Which issue is it that I mentioned doesn’t Congress have the authority to legislate? Your statements sound so grand, but since you don’t connect them to any reality, they are impossible to rebut, but also meaningless. Is it that Congress doesn’t have the authority to propose Constitutional amendments? Or that protecting life somehow violates the underlying common law of the Constitution?
Start with Congress regulating porn on cable, based on the premise they have that authority because it's a government regulated monopoly. Those monopolies are negotiated and granted by local governments. What gives Congress the authority to dictate the terms of those agreements?
So according to you, anybody who’s critical of the Israeli government is “anti-semitic.”
That’s about as “logical” as saying anybody who’s critical of the NAACP hates black people.
BTW, Arabs are semites too.
Ron Paul holds the same views on Israel as Jimmy Carter.
Enough said.
>> What additional powers does a president have in war times that are not explicitly authorized by Congress? <<
I didn’t mean that the powers were authorized by the president alone; I lumped him together with Congress (”...neither the President nor the Congress...”), referring to him singularly only because he executes them exclusively (”The President has powers...”).
Don’t lose the main thrust of my argument: the Constitution explicity grants the ability to declare war, authorizing trained militia into combat against states, and also to issue letters of Marque and reprisal, authorizing mercenaries into combat against terrorists, criminals and pirates. Paul’s quarrel with the declaration of war is that it isn’t titled such, it’s titled only a resolution. In fact, Paul proposed an alternative legislation entitled a Marque, but I submit that’d’ve been MORE dangerous, since Marques authorize mercenaries, and have generally been considered rogue since the Treaty of Paris.
Nothing in the Constitution defines that a declaration of war has to be entitled a declaration of war, and it’s senseless to say that greater powers of war are authorized by the Constitution, but any smaller set of powers are not authorized.
Now, to answer your question directly:
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War IN TIME OF PEACE, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” (In other words, during war, soldiers may be quartered on private property, so long as law prescribes how it is to be done. Outside of war, that is never permitted.)
Further, the takings clause of the fifth amendment implicitly authorizes drafts in times of war, which is not to necessarily say that drafts outside of times of war are inherently illegal (that can be quarreled out as a separate issue), but only that they are implicitly authorized by the existence of a time of war.
“Tactics that would make DU proud, amirite?”
Yes, it is as though they have no control over themselves.
Paul is CERTIFIABLE......support him at your own risk. HE’s Ross Perot without the great haircut.
In any case, none of that will take place unless authorized by Congress, even under a declaration of war. If Congress doesn’t think it’s necessary they won’t authorize it. What civil liberties are Congress protecting by not declaring war that they don’t have direct authority to protect even with that declaration?
See, now we can discuss your assertions:
Cable regulations are NOT merely negotiated and granted by local governments. They are negotiated and granted by local governments under terms set by the federal government, and cable companies are pressed into needing such permission as granted by local government because of regulations passed by the federal government.
IOW, even though the negotiations are conducted by local governments, their leverage in such negotiations are granted to them by the federal government. Hence, it is the federal government which indirectly authorizes pornography. Further, the 14th amendment binds the states to the 1st amendment, so it’s not as though the states would have any further legitimacy to regulate cable that the federal government doesn’t.
What remains is this: Because the federal government DOES regulate the very existence of the cable industry, what is provided by the cable industry is an action of the government, not of the free market.
Let’s not forget the issue: The cable industry was scrambling porn enough to motivate porn customers to buy descramblers, but not enough that children couldn’t clearly make out graphic depictions of sex, including violent and depraved sex, and couldn’t hear the screaming, etc. I know. I was a kid, and, for a few moments, I was amazed at what was on TV. Strangely, they did a far better job at scrambling the audio on the baseball games than on the porn. (I was mostly a good kid; my slightly delayed response was to go hunt for the scrambled MSG network, which carried Yankee games... but not so good that I considered that I’d be stealing the Yankees’ signal; I considered I’d been deprived of it when they took it off Channel 11.)
Devices were not available to prevent these “scrambled” channels to be seen. Many customers had only two choices: accept the semi-scrambled porn channels, or go without television. (In our case, we lived near enough a major city to get good broadcast reception, but wasn’t always the case.)
So what’s Ron Paul’s answer? My parents should have no access to the TV marketplace if they didn’t want me confronted with the temptation of watching porn? See, you can’t let the market fix the problem, because the free market isn’t existing. Ron Paul’s utopia sets the perfect as the enemy of the good.
A widely used canard.
Antisemitism has nothing at all to do with "semites". It's a term coined by a 19th century German politician, Wilhelm Marr as the name of his political party, Antisemitische(rs), in order to give his hatred for the Jews and plans to expel them from Europe an acceptable name. It has never had anything to do with racial "semites". It has never been used to describe hatred of Arabs.
“Ron Paul, United States Presidential candidate, ran it in 9.7 seconds.” That’s very impressive but not enough to vote for the man.
Where in all that is the answer to the question “What authorizes Congress to dictate the terms of those agreements?” You seem to subscribe to the idea that regulatory authority is self-evident - they can because they do, and that’s as far as the thought process needs to go.
>> In any case, none of that will take place unless authorized by Congress, even under a declaration of war. If Congress doesn’t think it’s necessary they won’t authorize it. What civil liberties are Congress protecting by not declaring war that they don’t have direct authority to protect even with that declaration? <<
Not true. First, what I cited were instances wherein the STATES were given war powers independent of Congress.
Second, “in a manner prescribed by law” does not mean “in a manner specifically legislated after each instance of war.” Theoretically, the President could authorize quartering, citing the prescription of any laws he deems applicable, such as eminent domain. Not saying he’d do it, or that the courts wouldn’t overrule him, but why tackle these messy issues?
Lastly, even if you argue successfully that the quartering clause requires specific legislative implementation (and I’ll grant that in my court, you’d have a strong case, but AFAIK, that’s an untested assertion), the fifth amendment rights seem to be suspended by the mere existence of a state of war. (Of course, I only refer to the first sentence of the fifth amendment; the more famous second part has no qualification about wartime.)
Last I checked, arguments based on hypotheticals at the extreme reaches of the remotely possible are called “strawmen”.
well, im glad to hear that, there have been some freepers who have said they would vote for Hillary over Paul.
>> Where in all that is the answer to the question “What authorizes Congress to dictate the terms of those agreements?” <<
Here: “Because the federal government DOES regulate the very existence of the cable industry, what is provided by the cable industry is an action of the government, not of the free market.”
>> You seem to subscribe to the idea that regulatory authority is self-evident - they can because they do, and that’s as far as the thought process needs to go. <<
You seem to subscribe that because regulatory authority is illegitimate, then the forces of good also have lay down to the abject subjugation to the forces of evil within the regulatory at all times.
I’m all for Paul trying to liberate the cable industry. But because government’s assumption of authority isn’t valid doesn’t mean that government is automatically absolved of all responsibility held by that authority, nor does it mean that all who reject the validity of the assumption of authority are compelled to likewise concede to evil at all turns.
In an analogy: Suppose I am a divorced parent. I might argue that under the law, my wife should not have been granted custody of my children. Fine. Does that mean that I also have to defend her against charges of neglect when the children have malnutrition, because the law states that she should not be the responsible person? Of course not! If the law were better applied, she wouldn’t have the responsibility, but as the law is applied, she has that responsibility, and I am obliged to do everything I can to make sure that the responsibility is fulfilled, even if the law says it’s not my responsibility.
>> well, im glad to hear that, there have been some freepers who have said they would vote for Hillary over Paul. <<
And I’d ride a flying cow to the moon!
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.