Posted on 03/01/2003 3:14:26 PM PST by exodus
**********************
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.
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.
**********************
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.
**********************
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.
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.)
They may not have "declared war" but Congress did give the President authorization to go after Saddem
**********************
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.
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.
**********************
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 .
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.
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.