Posted on 02/29/2016 3:48:54 PM PST by Drago
I’m aiding and abetting the Constitution. So should you.
Yes, I think so...but what do I know?
Not a “technicality” It is the LAW!
You advocate for actions that only can legally occur under a state of declared war, but say legally it doesn’t matter because that was then and this is now?
Sorry, but the constitution still applies, except to the 0bamabots that wipe their butts with it.
Don’t like the law? Change it!
No actually what we have here is the power of large numbers, and your complete lack of knowing what the hell you’re talking about. Encryption is NOT a code, and while it is technically breakable only through a brute force method that would take thousands even millions of years, thus making it functionally unbreakable.
Security theater???
I LIKE that. :o)
So fine. Whatever. I stopped caring SEVERAL posts ago.
You could be a man about it and admit you’re wrong. That’s how people learn, learning is good, you should try it some time.
You still have NOT answered the question. If this is your day job and you claim we are at an undeclared war, you are not very good at your day job. You don't have any legal authority for what you claim you want to do.
By the way, Apple has more disposable CASH on hand than the US Government. How, exactly are they going to compensate Apple justly under any possible eminent domain take over when Apple has about two to three times more disposable cash than the US Treasury?
Well, I'm not a man in ANY sense of the word...100% female. However, just to make you happy, here we go. I wish we still had the "scroll" feature.
I was wrong.
Even women can man up, just because you’re female is no excuse to act like a petulant 12 year-old. You were snarky and rude making fun of people saying encryption couldn’t be broken, people pointed out your errors, and you’re STILL snarky and rude. Maybe if you hadn’t been rude before people would be nice to you now. You keep not only flying by learning opportunities, but flipping them off.
bttt
Thanks, I appreciate your spunk in posting all those threads of stuff that the cultists don’t want anyone to know about.
They call you names to get you to stop but you ignore that and keep on annoying them with more.
it’s good to be paranoid because are really out there
What’s worse is my daily posts available for all to read here.
There were federal court decisions during the Vietnam War, at least up to the District and possible Circuit level, that held that the military was a “war”. Don’t know if they were ever appealed or still are good law.
I have to check on them. There were newspaper articles from the late 60’s/early 70’s. Most of the challenges were from the Left on the constitutionality of the US waging an “undeclared” war in SE Asia, and all challenges were defeated.
Here are some I have in my office:
* Baltimore Sun, Feb. 21, 1966, “War ‘Legal’ Bar Asserts: U.N. Charter and Southeast Asia Treaty Are Cited”, AP, Chicago. “The Association’s (ABA) House of Delegates unanimously approved a resolution taking that position.”
* Letter, New York Times, letter dated 1/16/67 (don’t have publication date) re “Lawyers Group Disputed on Vietnam” by Prof. Alford Jr. and Prof. John Norton Moore. This was a rebuttal to the communist-dominated “Lawyers Committee” on US Policy Towards Vietnam.
*column, Wash. Star, Nov. 21, 1967, James J. Kilpatrick, “Vietnam and The Law: An Inescapble Issue”
*Book on the subject: “Law and Vietnam” by Roger H. Hull and John C. Novogrod, Oceana, reviewed Wash. Sunday Star, DC, Jan. 21, 1968, C-3. “The tally (of the authors) shows the United States Position, that our actions are legal, firmly supported in both international and constitutional law”.
*article, Wash. Post, March 26, 1968, A3, “Justice Defends Legality of U.S. Role in Vietnam”, no author listed.
“The Justice Department told a Federal court yesterday that the U.S. presence in Vietnam ‘is supported by the full constitutional authority of the President and Congress, and no declaration of war is necessary to authorize that presence.”
Boston’s Federal Court: Dr. Benjamin Spock and 4 others (Sloan Coffin, Michael Ferber, Mitchell Goodman and Marcus Raskin) filed the suit. Communist Party covert member and top lawyer Leonard B. Boudin was the suit’s attorney. His daughter was Kathy Boudin, a leader of the Marxist terrorist group the Weather Underground Organization (FYI).
KEY DECISION: “Wash. Star”, June 22, 1968, “Military Tribunal Rules U.S. Is at War in Fact”, Donald Hirzel, staff writer, casse of Spec. 4 Clayton Anderson and being AWOL.
“Chief Judge John E. Quinn with Associate Judges Paul Kilday and Homer Ferguson declared that the condition of war does exist. Quinn based his decision on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed by Congress o n Aug. 10, 1964, after two American ships were attacked off Vietnam”.
He also wrote” ...the fact remains that we are at war, even though it has not been solemnly declared in the constitutional sense.”
CASE STATUS UNKNOWN but I suspect it was an unsuccessful challenge. “Wash Post” July 12, 1968, “Kansas Suit Challenges War Legality”, AP, Topeka, Kansas. Brought by a far-left law professor Lawrence R. Velvel (Un. of Kansas) “challenging the legality of U.S. participation in the war in Vietnam...”
IMPORTANT DECISION: “Wash. Post”, Sept. 17, 1970, “U.S. Judge Rules Vietnam War Constitutional”, AP, NYC, Federal District Judge Orrin Judd in the “Malcolm A. Berk” case (he sought to avoid service in Vietnam where he was stationed.
UNKNOWN RESULTS: “U.S. Judge Will Rule on Legality of Viet War”, Wash. Star, Sept. 11, 1970, AP “A federal judge in San Francisco says he has decided to rule on the constitutionality of the Vietnam war because it is time the courts stopped avoiding the issue.”
*”Wash. Post, Sept. 23, 1970, “High Court Asked to Kill Antiwar Suit”, John P. MacKenzie, staff writer, on a state of Massachusetts challenge to the war “as unconstitutional because Congress failed to declare it.”
DECISION on above suit: “Court Rejects Challenge to War”, Wash. Star, Lyle Denniston, staff writer, Oct. 12, 1971. “The Supreme Court rejected today, 5 to 2, a challenge to the constitutionality of the war in Vietnam.”
* “NY Times, “Supreme Court Refuses 7-2 to Rule on Vietnam War”, AP, filed March 6, 1972, probably printed in NYT in March 7th edition. “The Supreme Court today refused 7 to 2 to rule on whether the Vietnam war was constitutional, an action it has repeated at least a half dozen times each year since 1967.”
*”Wash. Post”, March 25, 1972, A31, “Nixon Viet War Power Backed by U.S. Judge”, Federal US Judge (Brooklyn) John F. Dooling, “held that stepped up bombing and mining of Haiphong were actions ‘within the boundaries of the continuing war and not forbidden by law.”
* Wash. Post, March 29, 1972, “War Legality Hearing Set”, UPI, 3 judge federal panel in Philadelphia on a ruling by Judge Joseph S. Lord. Deals with “standing” of the lawsuit members, led by leftist Rev. David M. Gracie.
Hope this gives you an idea on what the courts have decided and may have ruled on.
These are all international police actions, not a declared war. The US was never in a state of was, as we were never threatened or attacked by a nation state, unlike WW2. The US is using their military to enforce political will, not to secure and defend the country, as is their mission.
Leftists and progressives love the word “war”.
War on drugs,
War on poverty
War on crime
War on terrorism
etc.
And those same leftists want to do away with constitutional rights any time they have an undeclared war.
My shorts aren’t up. Yours are. You started that way. And all the whining is coming from you, so upset to have your condescending attitude thrown back in your face when you were so pathetically wrong. Internalize your error and grow. Or don’t and remain a loser for life. Makes no difference to me.
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.