Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another United Nations War?
Ron Paul ^ | February 28, 2003 | Ron Paul, M.D., and a Republican member of Congress from Texas

Posted on 03/01/2003 3:14:26 PM PST by exodus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 281-298 next last
To: harrowup

You are determined to stubbornly insist that only you have the intelligence and principles to determine what is constitutional. It is one of the most annoying aspects of trying to discuss political reality with libertarians. It doesn't matter that you are usually wrong. You are always wrong and your only purpose is to be argumentative and seek notice.
**********************

No, I do not insist that only my opinion matters. I insist that my opinion also matters.

The common people aren't as common as you think. The twelve men of the Supreme Court are not the only humans qualified to judge the law; nor are only members of Congress qualified to have political opinions, nor only policemen qualified to enforce the law, nor is only the President qualified to defend the country.

Try to remember that our Founders themselves were libertarians, harrowup. They had a problem with political "realities," too.

101 posted on 03/01/2003 8:49:44 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

Comment #102 Removed by Moderator

To: inquest
"Sure it is. They weren't singing about the judicial process."

It’s not an analogy, just a general phrase that plays on words like, "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is" or "you get what you pay for". An analogy references something specific and hints at a parallel to the current subject.

103 posted on 03/01/2003 8:57:20 PM PST by elfman2 on another computer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Darkdrake

The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war, it does not however, limit the use of our military to declared wars. (Ron Paul) knows this quite well, and is now grandstanding for future votes.
**********************

In what way is Ron Paul grandstanding for votes? Ron Paul runs as a Republican. Going against the Republican leadership is not a good way of promoting his re-election.

You're going to need a better argument if you're going to do a competent job of demonizing Ron Paul. That one doesn't fly.

104 posted on 03/01/2003 8:57:41 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

Comment #105 Removed by Moderator

Comment #106 Removed by Moderator

To: Darkdrake
If you go to this page and scroll to the blue box on the bottom, you'll see what I mean. Note that even Alexander Hamilton, who was the most outspoken among the Founders in favor of a strong executive, was unequivocal in his understanding that only Congress decides on war and peace.
107 posted on 03/01/2003 9:01:26 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: elfman2 on another computer
You were implying that because the judges exercised their "Free Will" as human beings in choosing not to decide, they've somehow made a legal ruling. That is what I was taking issue with.
108 posted on 03/01/2003 9:03:47 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

Comment #109 Removed by Moderator

To: elfman2 on another computer

elfman2 - As long as you’re certain that the Constitution is "explicit on every issue", could you show me where that’s stated as well?
**********************

That's not my quote, elfman2. The Constitution is not explicit on every issue. The Constitution is explicit on every governmental power.

The power to decide war was given to Congress. If Congress gives that power to the President, the President is deciding war. That's illegal.

As an aside, when the President breaks the law, Congress is required to punish the transgression. If the President decides to go to war, and Congress allows it, Congress is breaking the law, too.

110 posted on 03/01/2003 9:11:07 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"You were implying that because the judges exercised their "Free Will" as human beings in choosing not to decide, they've somehow made a legal ruling. That is what I was taking issue with. "

The effects the same. If Congress makes a borderline unconstitutional law tomorrow, I think it’s as good as legal until a judge exercises his ‘Free Will’ and puts a stay on its implementation. They know this, and that’s what I think the lyric is referring to. No choice is a choice because it has a resulting outcome. (Who’d have guessed that a Rush lyric would settle this disagreement.)

111 posted on 03/01/2003 9:12:44 PM PST by elfman2 on another computer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Darkdrake
It was Congress who made the decision to go to war with them. Jefferson executed the decision, as an executive should.
112 posted on 03/01/2003 9:13:28 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: exodus
If we're truly going to war for the security of the United States, we need a Declaration of War from Congress. So what's the big deal? Is it too much to ask, expecting our elected representatives to follow the law?

They may not have "declared war" but Congress did give the President authorization to go after Saddem

113 posted on 03/01/2003 9:15:44 PM PST by Mo1 (DC FREEPERS ROCK!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: elfman2 on another computer
It's only "as good as legal" in the practical sense. The courts have ruled in the past that an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional from the moment it's passed, not from the moment it's declared unconstitutional. The court's job is merely to discover it's unconstitutionality, not to cause it. Hence, if they decline to do their job in a particular case, the law is still unconstitutional, but simply hasn't been officially "discovered" to be so. So it's only in that sense that it's as good as legal.
114 posted on 03/01/2003 9:17:38 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Darkdrake; inquest

I guess Thomas Jefferson didn't know what the intent of the Founders had been when he decided to enter into undeclared wars with France, and with the Barbary pirates.
**********************

Thomas Jefferson didn't want to go to war without a Declaration of War. He asked for one, but Alexander Hamilton, a believer in a strong central government, argued that a Declaration of War wasn't necessary, and persuaded Congress to insist that Jefferson go to war anyway, on the grounds that as we were attacked, a declaration of war was unnecessary.

Jefferson complied, either for political considerations or because he didn't want to waste time fighting over procedure. That was a mistake on his part, I believe. He should have let Congress take the heat, and insisted on a Declaration of War before acting.

115 posted on 03/01/2003 9:19:54 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

Comment #116 Removed by Moderator

To: exodus
"The power to decide war was given to Congress. If Congress gives that power to the President, the President is deciding war. That's illegal."

I’ll take your word that I misquoted you. I apologize.

I see nothing intrinsic in the power to do something that excludes the power to delegate it. And to some extent, the Commander & Chief will always be delegated with the power to not wage war after Congress authorizes it. So in that sense, the latest congressional authorizations were a declaration of war, but with early recognition of the executive's authority to abstain from prosecuting it.

This is the kind of flexibility that our enemies probably didn’t expect of this nation when they declared war on us.

117 posted on 03/01/2003 9:25:30 PM PST by elfman2 on another computer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

They may not have "declared war" but Congress did give the President authorization to go after Saddem
**********************

Hello, Mo1.

Yes, the President was given Congressional authorization to decide whether he wanted to go to war with Iraq in the name of the United Nations.

I have a problem with the President having say-so over whether to go to war, I have a problem with Congress meekly offering the power to the President, and I have a problem with the official reason for war being based on the interests of the United Nations .

118 posted on 03/01/2003 9:26:32 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

Comment #119 Removed by Moderator

To: exodus; Darkdrake
That's not quite true. Jefferson did get an "authorization" similar to the Iraq resolution. The difference is in how these resolutions were understood by the Presidents to whom they were directed. Jefferson, and the other presidents of the period, understood an "authorization" to be merely a diplomatic way of saying "directive" to go to war, and acted accordingly. When the authorization was passed, hostilities commenced.

President Bush, on the other hand (along with the other presidents of the modern period), have looked upon congressional authorizations as bank checks, to be cashed or not, depending on when and whether they felt like it. This is what makes it a perversion of what the Founders explicitly intended. As you correctly pointed out earlier, it unconstitutionally delegates to the President the decision of war and peace.

As for the thing about Hamilton, that was in reference to an incident that occurred prior to the congressional resolution, when American naval vessels captured a Barbary vessel, then released it on Jefferson's orders, citing the lack of official hostilities. Hamilton castigated him for that, saying that the immediate situation called for keeping the vessel in captivity.

120 posted on 03/01/2003 9:28:07 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 281-298 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson