Posted on 12/29/2002 9:10:29 PM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
My view is that any philosophy which is committed to "global democracy" and "global capitalism" is not that far removed from "global socialism".
By the way, I have noticed that your posts are not generally, excepting the issue of Israel, perhaps, of a neo-con bent. Why, then, do you defend the neo-cons, as you have done on several other threads?
Better watch out, Mark -- your halo will choke you. Self-righteousness, one of the seven deadly FReeper sins. ROFL!
Take another hit -- your writing is improving.
My view is that any philosophy which is committed to "global democracy" and "global capitalism" is not that far removed from "global socialism".
Their universalist asparations are troubling. However, they support semi-limited government, private property, and less regultion. That isn't socialist.
By the way, I have noticed that your posts are not generally, excepting the issue of Israel, perhaps, of a neo-con bent.
I support Israel for a number of reasons. We are in a Clash of civilizations with the Mohammedins. Israel is an outpost. My solution in Israel is for a population transfer. It is one that would make neocons cringe.
You don't have to be a neocon to support Israel. I would argue that many paleos hate Israel only because most neocons love it.
Frankly, Israel can be used as a great tool to teach neocons and Chrsitian Zionists about the virtues of racialist realities.
Why, then, do you defend the neo-cons, as you have done on several other threads?
I hit both neocons and paleo-cons when I think they are wrong.
I am trying to get each side to see the others arguements.
It's positively hilarious, considering that I didn't mention Sobran.
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and to make Rules on Capture on Land and Water;"
The precise words to use in doing this, or any other authorized actions of Congress, are not specified. (When the Framers wanted specific words used, they put those in the Constitution, i.e., specifying the exact oath of office that a President shall make.)
While Congress did not use the same language in declaring war on the Barbary Pirates, or declaring war on those responsible for terrorism, that it did in the World War I and II declarations, it did declare war. Concerning both the pirates and the terrorists, Congress gave the President full discretionary power to use the US military against both individuals AND NATIONS.
There are two reasons for mentioning Congress' authority given to President Jefferson against the Barabary Pirates. First, that was the only other declaration of war in American history that did not name one or more specific nations as the enemy. Second, the war powers given to President Bush now were almost identical to those given to President Jefferson, then.
On 19 September, 2002, I had an article published on UPI entitled, "Commentary: Are we at war?" That article lays out chapter and verse of why we are at war, NOW, and how the requirements of the Constitution have been fully met, NOW.
As for the specifics of your comments, a war exists from the time Congress declares it, to the time that Congress declares it to be ended. How long wars will take is obviously unknown. So, the Framers not being dummies, did not require that Congress declare when a war would end at the time they declared it to begin.
Also, your comment about "an unnamed enemy" is off base. In the Barbary Pirate War, we declared war against enemies who did not officially represent any recognized nation. We described them by their actions. And Congress authorized President Jefferson to pursue those enemies "across any national boundaries." Some of the Framers were alive and serving in Congress, when that war was declared. So your supposition that "the Framers would never be so foolish as to allow such a war" is clearly off base. Living Framers, serving in Congress, DID vote for that war.
It would be a simple matter for you to compare the Barbary Pirate declaration to the Terrorism declaration and see that there are no material differences between them. The problem with your analysis is you have your idea of what a "proper" declaration of war consists of. The Constitution does not require that your version is the only version.
Case closed.
To hchutch: Thanks for the ping. The argument that "we are not at war" keeps rearing its ugly head on these threads. It's important that someone who has read most of the declarations of war that Congress has ever passed, weigh in to drive a wooden stake into this idea, whenever it rises from its coffin to menace FreeRepublic, again.
Congressman Billybob
Click for latest column on UPI, "Incision Decision in the Senate" (Now up on UPI wire, and FR.)
As the politician formerly known as Al Gore has said, my book, "to Restore Trust in America"
Politics is ugly. Ideologues refuse to see this.
It's a shame neoconservatives don't support a federal government limited to the size authorized by the Constitution.
Neither do many other types of conservatives.
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.