McCain Rejects Idea That U.S. Can’t Afford No-Fly Zone in Libya (McCain wants to intervene in Libya)

Fox ^ | 2011-03-02

[rabscuttle385]

(snip)

"We are spending over $500 billion dollars, not counting Iraq and Afghanistan, on our nation's defense. Don't tell me we can't do a no fly zone over Tripoli," the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services said at the Atlantic Council Tuesday evening.

"I love the military, I love it, it's been my life, but they always seem to find reasons why you can't do something rather than why you can," Sen. McCain said.

(snip)

On Libyan leader Qaddafi, McCain said, "This guy's days are numbered. The question is -- is can we shorten those number of days to save lives, to save people's lives because it's clear he's going to kill whoever he thinks he can in order to stay in power."

(snip)

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"If the preamble to the Constitution is law it should be very easy for someone as smart as you are to cite one case that has been decided based on the pretext that the preamble is indeed the law of the land."

I will do that when you cite case law for every other part of the constitution to ensure that it is indeed the law of the land. If your assertion is correct (that in order for it to be law it has to have been part of a case decided by the Supreme Court), then you should have no problem finding case law for every statement in the constitution.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

You can't even admit a simple mistake you made. You stated:

"BTW, I'm not sidestepping anything. I don't bother answering your questions because they are just distractions from the original question of whether the preamble to the Constitution is law."

I showed you what the first question you asked was. It was in post 23:

"Just curious, but where in the Constitution do you find verbiage that allows the USA to intervene in the domestic affairs of a sovereign country simply because we currently get 2% of our oil from them?"

Which, BTW I promptly answered. You just didn't like the answer. This just goes to show how you can't even admit when you were plainly wrong. It's clear what the first question you asked was. Yet, you won't admit it. You are just a dishonest person who has no interest in the truth as evidenced by your duplitious statements above. How to discuss things with a dishonest sea lawyer? Just can't be done.

[Thermalseeker]

You just didn't like the answer.

No, your answer was based on your opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up. I've asked you to do one simple thing: Cite a case, any case, that has been brought to the SCOTUS which was decided on the pretext that the preamble to the Constitution is law. Plain and simple. A smart guy like you should have no trouble citing this, if indeed it exists. Someone as brilliant as you obviously are should be able to do it in a matter of seconds. I know the answer already. You also know it doesn't exist. Your continuing outbursts show beyond a shadow of doubt that you've backed yourself into a corner and that is why you keep badgering me. You have yet to answer this one simple question. It's put up or shut up time. It's okay if you admit that you were wrong. That's what a real man would do. One specific case, just one. That's all I'm asking for.......

[Thermalseeker]

I will do that when you cite case law for every other part of the constitution to ensure that it is indeed the law of the land.

BAWWWHAAHAHAHAHAHA! Talk about SIDESTEPPING! ROTFLMAO!

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Cite a case, any case, that has been brought to the SCOTUS which was decided on the pretext that the preamble to the Constitution is law."

You are very thick headed so I guess I'll have to break it down real simple for you. You see, I reject your whole assertion. That in order for a statement in the Constitution to be law that it had to be adjudicated by SCOTUS. So I will provide you with your answer, when you have proven that your assertion is true. So, you go ahead and cite SCOTUS case law that relates to every other section of the Constitution. Then I will cite SCOTUS case law for the preamble.

You have proven that you don't understand general logic. You don't get to set the rules of the debate there Mr. Sea lawyer. You have to prove your assertion is true in order for me to answer it. Is that simple enough for you? Probably not because you have also proven to be dishonest. So put up or shut up about your assertion. Be a man and prove your assertion. That's all I'm asking for....

[Old Teufel Hunden]

BTW, I like how you ignore your simple misstatement about your first question to me. Since you have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be mistaken and wrong, you simply ignore the charge. It just shows your continued dishonesty.

[Thermalseeker]

You see, I reject your whole assertion.

How can you reject my whole assertion when it was YOU who said the preamble to the Constitution is law? My assertion was that the law starts at Article 1, Section 1, not the preamble. I asked you to cite ONE CASE that supports your opinion and you can't do it. That's the only question I have for you and you still refuse to answer it. I asked first, too, and thus far you have only "answered" my question with more questions and a seemingly non-ending stream of incoherent blather. And, somehow you believe have the corner on logic? ROTFLMAO!

Blather on, my FRiend, blather on......Check and Mate.

[Thermalseeker]

It just shows your continued dishonesty.

LOL!!! Yeah, I live to deceive you. Bawhahahahaha! What a legend you are.....

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"How can you reject my whole assertion when it was YOU who said the preamble to the Constitution is law?"

Wow, are you really this stupid? Or just this dishonest? You still have not admitted your clear mistake about the first question you asked me. So you are probably just this dishonest. The assertion I reject made by you is that something from the Constitution is only considered law if it has been adjudicated by SCOTUS. That is your assertion and is underlying in the prompting of your question. I answered your original question, yet you have never answered any of mine. So, when you can prove your assertion (that statements in the constitution are only law if they have been adjudicated by SCOTUS), then I'll take the time look up some case law and answer your question.

Is that simple enough for you sea lawyer? Probably not, because you are a dishonest sea lawyer. Proven because you have been shown to make conflicting statements and not even admitted it.

[Thermalseeker]

You sir, are delusional. Rant on, keep on throwing insults all you want. I'm not taking the bait.

Notice how I have not made any attempt to insult you? Your reaction to my simple question is proving beyond a shadow of doubt that you cannot back up your claims.

Now, you are making things up based on your opinion. I don't accept your opinion as a basis for any commentary because you have proven that you do not know what you are talking about.

I ask you one more time, please cite one case where the preamble to the Constitution was cited as law. If you come back with more of this blather about how I'm being dishonest, despite the fact that the previous six posts have all asked the same thing, you have exposed yourself. Again, it's okay to admit you are wrong. It's the noble thing to do at this point. Continuing to attempt to insult me just shows your weak character. Put up, or shut up.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"you come back with more of this blather about how I'm being dishonest"

For further "blather" of your dishonesty, re-read post 78.

"Now, you are making things up based on your opinion. I don't accept your opinion as a basis for any commentary"

And who are you that I should accept your assertion as fact? You have proven nothing here. Oh wait, you prove your dishonesty by not admitting a plain mistake as shown in post 78. Now, admit your mistake and prove your assertion as fact or leave me alone! If you do those two things, I will be glad to answer your questions. Until then, I concur. Quit wasting bandwidth!!

[Thermalseeker]

Yeah, I knew you couldn’t answer it......LOL!

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Yeah, I knew you couldn’t answer it......LOL!"

I knew you couldn't answer the charges against you in post 78! LOL!! You are proven to be dishonest. I also know that you can't back up your assertions!!! ROFL

However, here is something for you to chew on:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=329&invol=69&linkurl=http://www.conlaw.org/cites2.htm&graphurl=http://www.conlaw.org/images/clf.gif

From RICHFIELD OIL CORP. v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION SCOTUS Ruling:

"'In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole [329 U.S. 69, 78] instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning;'"

Every word in the constitution has it's due force. I win again!!! ROFLMAO.

Now admit your error and admit you can't even verify your assertions even though I cited a SCOTUS case for you! You are a fool!!!!!

[Thermalseeker]

Every word in the constitution has it's due force. I win again!!! ROFLMAO.

Keep laughing because you still haven't answered the question. The preamble is the preamble. The Constitution starts at Article 1, Section 1. Ask any attorney and they will tell you exactly what I have.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Three words....

Game, set match

LOL!!!!!!

[Thermalseeker]

See, e.g., Boyer, 85 F. at 430 : "I venture the opinion that no adjudicated case can be cited which traces to the preamble the power to enact any statute."

It has been widely recognized by courts across the land, including the SCOTUS that the preamble to the Constitution is an introduction to the Constitution, since it specifically references "this Constitution" and the next words after the preamble begins Article 1, Section 1. The preamble is not law. The reference you cite does not mention the preamble. Wanna try again?

[Thermalseeker]

Game, set match

Yep, you lost. I just posted the legal reference that puts your claims out to pasture once and for all.....

[Old Teufel Hunden]

You are a dishonest sea lawyer. Whenever you are confronted with the Supreme Court decision that says every word in the constitution is to be given equal weight you can't even admit you're wrong. Well, just like last time when you couldn't admit you were wrong about the first question you asked me. Dishonest sea lawyer.

Game, Set, Match

LOL!!!!!

[Thermalseeker]

I just gave you a legal reference to a majority opinion by the SCOTUS on this exact subject. Did you read it? You see, you took the bait, hook, line and sinker, partner. Go ask any attorney. They will tell you the same thing. In fact, why don’t you do a vanity post if you are so sure of yourself and ask the attorney’s here on Free Republic for an opinion. I dare you.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Game, Set, Match

LOL!!!