Another United Nations War?

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

[exodus]

I calls 'em as I sees 'em, Darkdrake.

Jefferson bowed to Congressional intimidation. He should have held off on deciding to go to war, and forced Congress to make the decision.

As it was, as I point out here, Jefferson could have decided to NOT go to war.

It wasn't Jefferson's decision to make. The decision to make War is a Congressional responsibility.

[elfman2 on another computer]

"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."

It looks pretty encompassing from what I read in #105 above.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority... "

[William Terrell]

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

Ok, show me a federal appeals court decision where the SC has refused to hear it, or heard it and ruled as you say. Federal district courts' decisions are very limited in how they can be used as precedent.

[inquest]

So now it's come down to emphatically stating a position as a way of making it sound more authoritative.

The Constitution does not authorize Congress to delegate its core powers to the President, regardless of how much you'd like it to.

[Texasforever]

Was there a Congressional Declaration of War on the Barbary Pirates? ( Maybe not!)

[Experiment 6-2-6]

I haven't been following the issue, and Vietnam hasn't been in the news.

Um, Vietnam HAS been in the news, ever since they decided to send workers to a sweatshop under the guidance of a South Korean Businessman. BUT NOT BEFORE THEY ALL UNDERWENT PATRIOTIC CLASSES. Except the South Korean Businessman just gots found guilty in a Federal Court in Hawaii for slave trafficking.

But I fergot. Vietnam is not commie anymore. HA!

[inquest]

Right, "Cases". Meaning disputes between parties. Their job is to resolve disputes between parties, using the Constitution and the laws of the United States as a guide. When it comes right down to it, their rulings are only applicable to the particular cases themselves. It's only as a matter of custom that such rulings are seen as authoritative in a larger sense. But custom only means so much.

[exodus]

So, the Constitution is then wrong when it clearly states that The Supreme Court has the power to make decisions on the constitutionality of issues?

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

The Supreme Court does not have Congressional authority to decide the Constitutionality of any law. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over certain areas, but nowhere does the Constitution give the Court power to rule a law illegal.

The Constitution on the Supreme Court -
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[elfman2 on another computer]

"Ok, show me a federal appeals court decision where the SC has refused to hear it, or heard it and ruled as you say. Federal district courts' decisions are very limited in how they can be used as precedent. "

Man! And if you only behaved with a little bit of honor an integrity, we could have discussed this now. LOL! (Re: #134)

[inquest]

I don't think you quite got the point of my post. You might want to click on Replies to see the conversation unfold a bit further.

[William Terrell]

So, the Constitution is then wrong when it clearly states that The Supreme Court has the power to make decisions on the constitutionality of issues?

Has the Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch can exercise powers assigned to the legislative branch, or that the legislative branch can transfer powers assigned to it in article 1 to the executive branch empowered by article two, using the authority found in the document that created both and specifically separated their powers?

[Texasforever]

The Constitution does not authorize Congress to delegate its core powers to the President, regardless of how much you'd like it to.

Show me in the constitution where it REQUIRES congress to declare war and the boiler plate language such a declaration must follow.

[nopardons]

He can't ... it isn't there !

[inquest]

You're arguing the point backwards. You need to show where the President is given the power to initiate war by his own decision.

[inquest]

So by delegating war powers to the President, they're doing what it "necessary and proper" for carrying out some particular grant of power? What grant of power, and how is this either necessary or proper for attaining that end?