Another United Nations War?

Ron Paul ^ | February 28, 2003 | Ron Paul, M.D., and a Republican member of Congress from Texas

[exodus]

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

**********************

I would take someone's word too, elfman2. It's way too much trouble to go back through the thread searching for things like that.

You're forgiven, my friend.

[elfman2 on another computer]

"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."

I don’t disagree. And since there have been rulings that dismiss rather than ignore challenges to congressional authorization for the use of force without explicitly declaring war, they have ruled, and it’s legal until otherwise stayed or overturned.

[inquest]

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

Why is it so essential that this "flexibility" be exercised by the President rather than Congress?

[Mo1]

And I have a problem with people who refuse to get it.

[inquest]

Congressmen and the President are still violating their oath by doing it. They're sworn to uphold the Constitution, not judicial rulings based thereupon.

[exodus]

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.

**********************

I spent a lot of time on this once, disputing this very point with Texasforever on a different, but simular, situation. I'll use the short method, and just state that in my expert opinion, my opinion is the correct one. :))

[William Terrell]

I think you’re mistaken. Refusal to take a case is a court ruling that the case has no merit, and that the constitutional challenge is groundless.

Well, no, there are several ways that a court can refuse to hear a case that has nothing to do with the merits of the issues in question. This judge used one. He wimped out. He could have taken it.

There was a most important constitutional question involved. The transfer of powers from the legislative branch to the executive branch is what happens when the legislative branch lets the executive branch go to war without a formal declararion under 1-8-11.

If that's not a violation of the separation of powers, we're so far gone as to moot any of this discussion.

Plus, this is a federal district court. A federal district court can't "settle" a constitutional issue by refusing to hear it, WHATEVER THE REASON they don't, as far I can tell.

[William Terrell]

I agree. If we don't formally use Art 1, sec 8, cl 11 to authorize the people of the US to go to war, and still go to war, we have to be doing it under the authority of the UN.

The president has no constitutional authority to declare war and there is no justifiable way the legislative branch can transfer constitutionally granted powers reserved in article 1 to the executive branch created and empowered in article 2. If the supreme court says they can, the supreme court is wrong.

Does that "grant" of powers to the executive include "grant(ing) letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make(ing) Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"? I doubt it.

So, if the president takes us to war with a foreign country without using constitutional granted powers, he must be acting on powers given to him by the UN. Could it have something to do with that unknown executive order used to burn Michael New for refusing to wear the UN beret, when the uniform of the US military is clearly defined?

[elfman2 on another computer]

"I would take someone's word too, elfman2. It's way too much trouble to go back through the thread searching for things like that.
You're forgiven, my friend. "

Looks like I apologized too early. Maybe you should have gone back yourself and reread your own post before adopting that condescending tone with me.

"You think that the Constitution isn't explicit? My reading of the document resulted in a different opinion. The Constitution if [is] very explicit on every issue…"

[inquest]

Based on the fact that they're being abused, to put it quite simply. War is a serious matter, not something to be trifled with at the whim of a single executive. The people with names like Jefferson, Hamilton, and Adams didn't try to make themselves the role of arbiter of war and peace. They understood the true meaning of the word "executive", i.e., one who "executes" policy decided by Congress. The people with names like Bush, Johnson, and Truman, by contrast, have inserted themselves into the legislative business.

[exodus]

To: inquest
You give credence to one congressional authorization (read: not a declaration of war) to wage war simply because the people involved had names like Jefferson, Hamilton, and Adams, but want to discredit similar, contemporary congressional authorizations based on what exactly?

**********************

True, Darkdrake. Either it's legal, or it's not. Jefferson didn't want to go to war without a declaration from Congress, but was intimidated into going to war, anyway.

Jefferson's compliance with that Congressional pressure was his only cowardly decision as far as I know.

Jefferson is my favorite Founder.

[inquest]

I'm confused; what opinion would that be, exactly?

[elfman2 on another computer]

"Congressmen and the President are still violating their oath by doing it. They're sworn to uphold the Constitution, not judicial rulings based thereupon."

And the Constitution authorizes the judiciary to decide if an action is in violation, and it has spoken.

[inquest]

It only gives the judiciary the responsibility to decide on particular cases, using the Constitution as a guide. It nowhere states that they are the final authority on what the Constitution actually says.

[exodus]

Okay, I apologize in turn.

I mispoke there. The Constitution is very explicit on every governmental power, but not on every possible issue.

Does that cover it?

[elfman2 on another computer]

William, we haven’t spoken since you wasted my time about a year ago evasive little games. Don’t address me now. I’m not going to follow you around in circles trying to get you to stay on subject again.

[elfman2 on another computer]

" Does that cover it?"

Fair enough.