Posted on 01/13/2002 7:26:46 PM PST by Wiley Sr
Wake up, America!
Sorry, Eddie. Congress approved the war on terrorism, with only one dissenting vote. Congress didn't nod; they clapped.
Represented any more Aryan Nation types lately?
Yeah right, this fellow isn't paranoid or anything. And he'd tell us that too if he wasn't too busy hiding from the people out to get him or those 'black helicopters' hovering over his house. Wait, let me get my 'tin foil hat' and I'll reread this and see if I understand it better.
Liar.
These are Steele's words. I used the same term (war) he used.
There is an article by Gary Galles submitted to the de Mises Institute in celebration of Edmund Burke's birthday January 12--born 273 years ago. Following are some excerpts from the article about Burke and quotes from Burke in consideration of this discussion:
"He was also an intellectual ally of America's revolution, condemning the imposition of taxes without representation as "perfect uncompensated slavery," and warning that if required to choose between British sovereignty and freedom, American colonists 'will cast your sovereignty in your face. Nobody will be argued into slavery.'"
"It is better to cherish virtue and humanity, leaving much to free will . . . than to attempt to make men machines and instruments of political benevolence. The world as a whole will gain by a liberty without which virtue cannot exist."
"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts."
"Arbitrary power . . . is a subversion of natural justice, a violation of the inherent rights of mankind."
"[Nothing is] more truly subversive of . . . human society than the position that any body of men have a right to make what laws they please."
"Those who have been once intoxicated with power . . . never can willingly abandon it. They may be distressed in the midst of all their power, but they will never look to anything but power for their relief."
"Property was not made by government, but government by and for it. The one is primary and self-existent; the other is secondary and derivative."
"The moment that government appears at market, the principles of the market will be subverted."
Congress has approved the actions taken by the president.
Don't worry, I think hard before throwing around terms.
Congress has approved the actions taken by the president.
True, but that's not what was said. What was said:
Congress approved the war on terrorism
Congress did no such thing. War WAS NOT declared. In fact, as I recall, some in Congress were working on a proper constitutional war declaration and were quietly asked by the president's administration to not do so. I can only guess as to why, but it will be the usual reason to ignore the Constitution, convenience and expediency.
Now that's all fine and good, but don't go around and insult my intelligence by saying that Congress has approved a war. That smacks of rewriting history. If you do, you're going to get called on it, and called a liar.
Call it what you want, and use the spin to whatever political end you so desire, but don't call me a liar.
Article I, Section 8 specifies that Congress declares war, not foreign aggressors.
Osama committed an act of war. He has no authority to declare war on our behalf. The Japanese Navy committed an act of war at Pearl Harbor. Then Congress declared war against Japan. That's how it works.
Call it what you want
OK, it's a 'police action'.
and use the spin to whatever political end you so desire, but don't call me a liar.
Oh, there's some spin around here. But it's not coming from me. And I'll call anyone who lies to me a liar.
BTW, in accordance to the War Powers Act, the actions taken by the President and Congress are completely constitutional.
Article I, Section 8 specifies that it is Congress, and Congress alone that has the power to declare war. The executive is to carry out this war. Any change to this must be done through constitutional amendment. Mere legislation is insufficient to redesignate the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. Congress has no power to delegate its authority to the executive. They must pass an amendment, then it must be ratified by the States. BTW, is this the same War Powers Act that 'conservatives' used to dislike?
If you need to call me a liar to feel like some kind of stud, call me a liar.
But nobody else cares.
That's almost funny, of course not, he declared war ON US.
When did Barbara Lee join Aryan Nation?
At least some will remember what it was like to be free. If they're allowed to live.
Declaration of War.... An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli ''and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . .'' But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view.
Sixty years later, the Supreme Court sustained the blockade of the Southern ports instituted by Lincoln in April 1861 at a time when Congress was not in session. Congress had subsequently ratified Lincoln's action, so that it was unnecessary for the Court to consider the constitutional basis of the President's action in the absence of congressional authorization, but the Court nonetheless approved, five-to-four, the blockade order as an exercise of Presidential power alone, on the ground that a state of war was a fact. ''The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact.'' The minority challenged this doctrine on the ground that while the President could unquestionably adopt such measures as the laws permitted for the enforcement of order against insurgency, Congress alone could stamp an insurrection with the character of war and thereby authorize the legal consequences ensuing from a state of war.
The view of the majority was proclaimed by a unanimous Court a few years later when it became necessary to ascertain the exact dates on which the war began and ended. The Court, the Chief Justice said, must ''refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates; and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department, which may be, and, in fact, was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken. The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second."
These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnamese War has been whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration. The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented, and the lower courts gen erally refused, on ''political question'' grounds, to adjudicate the matter. In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant.
This is excerpted from an informative article on THE WAR POWER at FindLaw.com. You can read Hamilton's critique of Jefferson's wierdly Clintonian act of giving the Tripolitans back the ship they had just attacked us with here at The Founders' Constitution
It should be clear that our present situation, when the nation has been attacked, is very different from the various Cold War conflicts and Clinton interventions from Korea to Kosovo. Those were situations where the President initiated war without a declaration. This is a situation where the President responded to an attack on the United States, seeking authorization from Congress along the way.
The people who call this an un-Constitutional war seem to avoid basic questions. Like, what is a Declaration of War, anyway? What does a Declaration of War do? As far as I can tell, historically a D of W is an act by which one nation initiates hostilities against another. The Constitution does not say that US troops may never be committed to battle without a Declaration of War. It says that only Congress has the right to initiate hostilities against another nation. But we are now at war with enemies, some of them nations, who initiated hostilities against us long ago.
9 posted on 1/7/02 4:35 PM Pacific by Southern Federalist
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.