Posted on 03/03/2002 6:26:29 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:16 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In Beijing, Bush called China our ''partner.'' Cuba officially is our ''enemy.'' Why?
Because a small number of powerful exiles in South Florida cow our politicians into keeping the crazy Cuban policy. That was designed to castrate Fidel Castro and has failed for more than 40 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Maybe you should reconsider your position. Prohibition in the trade of certain substances such as fissible material and supercomputers has absolutely not prevented other nations from creating nuclear weapons. Not Pakistan, not Israel, not the Soviet Union, not India. Not a single country.
It looks like we're in this predicament in spite of these prohibitions and worse, we don't know who has supercomputers or fissible material because all of those sales were unregulated.
Dangerous, dangerous words.
Right. And do you care to tell us the intent of that Embargo (an act of war) ie; to whom was it directed?
The powers meant to provide for the common defense and general welfare are enumerated in Article 1, section 8, such as ...
1) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations
2) To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
3) To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,
4) To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting
5) To establish Post Offices and post Roads
6) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts ...
7) To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
All of the above are meant to provide for the general Welfare of the United States ...
All of the following are meant to provide for the common Defence of the United States;
8) To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas ...
9) To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal ...
10) To raise and support Armies,
11) To provide and maintain a Navy;
12) To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
13) To provide for calling forth the Militia
14) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia
15) And then there's the one that sets the parameters for the District of Columbia. (Doesn't fit in either category)
After they take the time to specifically enumerate the powers I listed here they say Congress has the power ...
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,"
Now why would they go to the trouble of listing powers so specifically if all they had to say was support the general welfare?
But if you still feel the preamble lists powers delegated to the federal government then do me this ... Name ONE power, program, or department (current or imagined) that wouldn't/couldn't/doesn't, fall under the heading "general welfare". Or just tell me how the federal government would be limited if "common defense" and "general welfare" were granted powers. Thanks.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Now, as for your "interpretation of the Constitution ...
Name ONE power, program, or department (current or imagined) that wouldn't/couldn't/doesn't, fall under the heading "general welfare". Or just tell me how the federal government would be limited if "common defense" and "general welfare" were granted powers. Thanks.
Have you never picked up a history book? You have a year of reading ahead of you before you will be marginally competent. You should start now.
Congressman Billybob
New column up: "The Un-Music Man." You'll like this one a bunch.
Congressman Billbyob
Jefferson and Madison, both founding fathers, embraced emargo's.
Ergo, the original intent was that embargo's are constitutional.
End of story.
Where are you going with this?
The document was written, and amended, at various specific times in history. Every word in it has a clear meaning in the minds of those who drafted them in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Anyone who seeks to make it up as they go along with respect to the Constitution is both a fool, and a danger to the Constitution.
As the comedian says, "Demidog, here's your sign."
Billybob
All of it? It wasn't directed at a single country?
The fact is, it caused more harm domestically than it ever caused abroad.
Frankly I do not think that regulation includes prohibition for the reasons I stated. And historically, including this case, prohibition always results in an un-regulated underground market. ALWAYS.
I think that in a time of war, it is perfectly appropriate to stop trading with the enemy. However, I do not think that this is in conflict with the powers that were given.
There are always exceptions in war, though I will concede that if my view is correct, that prohibition is not allowed, then the Congress has over time ignored that fact.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a constitutional right may not be legislated away. A man has a right to trade and make a living.
But consider this. This is just one of the places in the constitution giving the congress the power to regulate:
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Those that would assert that regulation includes prohibition; Do you suggest that the Congress has the right to prohibit land or naval forces merely by fact that it has the power to regulate them?
Where's that whole "opinion" thing?
BTW, I don't have time for Dominoes. My time is all taken up by my two sons, one is six and the other is two years-old.
It's one of those "opinion" thingy's again, isn't it?
Can you back this up with anything other than an insult to me?
I'd like to see that survey on the US born children of exiles where you got that info from.
Looking for that "in my opinion" thing...could you help?
"I have also yet to hear how the Embargo has weakened Castro. Of course, to ask these tough questions brings out attacks.
136 posted on 3/3/02 1:28 PM Pacific by GuillermoX
So then, if you don't believe that the embargo would facilitate Castro's demise, why would you be waiting to hear how it would have that effect? And why would you make the comment about asking these though questions?
It's a tough question, are you now going to define "is" for us again?
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.