Posted on 12/02/2001 8:50:01 AM PST by H.Akston
That has nothing to do with the subject here.
Again, you fail to understand what "cover" means, in the context in which I use it.
If I was an illegal alien, on US Soil, and I cheered when the World Trade Center blew up, I'd lose my freedom to express joy, in this country, because I would not be covered by the Bill of Rights. I would be out of here, just like those Chinese reporters, and Bob Barr would be whining that I was treated unjustly and unconstitutionally, and he would be as wrong as you are.
How thick can one head be? This has been explain many times. The Bill of Rights tells the GOVERNMENT, I'll repeat that, the GOVERNMENT what not to do. It doesn't say it can only do it to certain people, it tells it not to do those things altogether. This is simple.
Yes. My statement was poorly worded. He can be tried by a civilian court for non-military crimes. He cannot, for example, be tried by a civilian court for making faces at his superior officer.
The Founders were inspired (and hard workers). Here is all of Madison's notes on the debate:
"The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
reported by James Madison : August 17
Mr. BUTLER. The objections agst. the Legislature lie in [FN26] great degree agst. the Senate. He was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it.
Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
Mr. SHARMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war. "Make" [FN27] better than "declare" the latter narrowing the power too much.
Mr. GERRY never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.
Mr. ELSWORTH. there is a material difference between the cases of making war and making peace. It shd. be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration. peace attended with intricate & secret negociations.
Mr. MASON was agst. giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred "declare" to "make."
On the motion to insert declare-in place of make, it was agreed to. N. H. no. Mas. abst. Cont. no. [FN29] Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md."
Note he can definitely use war to repel (without any say by Congress), but not to commence, an attack.
Congress met seldom in those days and it took a long time to travel.
No, this is the equivalent to sending him to juvenile court or "grown-up court" because that is the court to which jurisdiction applies.
And once again AJ in his pitiful rush to attack gets it wrong. Akston said exactly that you just didn't take the time to read it.
I understand exactly how you're using it. I also understand that you're using it wrong.
Maybe, however, I fail to understand how set on your errors you are.
Ummmm. Nope. The Northern Alliance has some Autonomous groups, but among them is the "Official Government of Afghanistan". Only three nations had ever recognized the Taliban militia groups as the Government of Afghanistan. Not even Iran has ever recognized them. Pakistan had recognized them because they created the Taliban. BTW, the Taliban is also in Pakistan, where it exists only as a religious movement.
I don't know. I'm trying to find out myself.
This has been explained many times.
The Bill of Rights tells the GOVERNMENT, I'll repeat that, the GOVERNMENT what not to do to certain people.
It doesn't apply to every human being on US Soil, as Barr said. This is simple. It doesn't apply to Chinese reporters who attempt to freely express joy under the 1st Amendment. They end up without any protection under the first amendment, which is the first of the first 10 Amendments, which are known as the Bill of Rights, which Barr referred to in his statement.
Now lets see if that jackhammer can get through that lump of granite sitting on your shoulders.
Who were the Presidents and Vice Presidents from 1795-1815? They ALL did.
To: schmelvin Congress declared war on the Barbary Pirates. They were not a nation. They were very similar to modern terrorists. A+bert actually led me to this: No, we didn't but it was understood to be an official war nonetheless, and Congress specifically authorized monies to fight the war. As example, see the war history of the USS Constitution. The battles she fought against the French in the Quasi-war were considered analogous to police Actions. The battles against the Barbary Pirates, part of official War.
# 385 by lepton
************
The action abainst the Barbary Pirates started under President Thomas Jefferson. He said that he had done all he could without a Declaration of War from Congress. His successor, Alexander Hamilton, disagreed. Hamilton said that the Pirates had already declared war on the United States, so he wasn't required to wait for a Declaration of War.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson.
War is illegal without the sanction of a Congressional Declaration of War.
By the way,
does anyone know why this program
won't let me put A+Bert in the "To" window?
Never mind, I checked
He must be banned again.
I miss ya already, A+Bert.
BTW, the quote you use, at least in the context you posted it in, doesn't say what you say it says. It confirms that the power to declare war should be one that exists - as opposed to NOT having power to declare war on anyone at all.
Exodus, Hamilton was never president.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise by certain people thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech of certain people, or of the press; or the right of the certain people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Objective morality is superior to law. Unfortunately we cannot prove objective morality so we must rely on the rule of law based on what we the people say is moral.
Thus the law is superior to what you and I might say is moral as individuals.
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.