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

To: Dog Gone
That's funny. My highest grade in law school was in Constitutional Law.

I'm glad you see the humor/irony in that, too.

You have your interpretation. Of course, the courts have specifically rejected it.

Of course, the courts are never wrong and without agenda.

You're flat out wrong.

I know you don't mean to say that when congress "shall have the power to lay and collect taxes," etc and "declare war" that because congress has levied taxes in the past, President Bush can levy taxes as suits him, but that is what you and the courts are saying.

But, the courts are never wrong.

Also, it is disingenuous to suggest that the "war on terrorism resolution" covers the war on Iraq. You, Mr. Kreb and I know that that resolution was argued for because terrorists have no national identity. Saddam does. Did.

Interestingly, the terrorist resolution serves two opposing purposes: It met the minimal requirement for the declaration of war (throwing your and the courts assertion into doubt) and allows the troops to mobilize, but it also obscures the authority for which the original action came from - congress. Which according to you and the courts was never needed in the first place.

Lastly, because I know we'll never agree, I will concede that public sentiment makes all of this discussion irrelevent in a practical sense. Still, it is worthwhile to mention the constitution now and then.

26 posted on 04/11/2003 9:54:42 AM PDT by Nephi (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Nephi

Perhaps you missed Congress passing $80 Billion for the War on Iraq, or maybe you just don't understand that paying for a war qualifies as legal authorization.

Further, perhaps you don't realize that the President has full authority to defend the U.S. and respond to hostile acts against us, e.g. Hussein firing on U.S. aircraft flying over the Northern and Southern Iraq "no fly zones" set up in Iraq's 1991 surrender treaty, among a host of numerous other legal justifications for war.

29 posted on 04/11/2003 10:05:42 AM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Nephi
Also, it is disingenuous to suggest that the "war on terrorism resolution" covers the war on Iraq.

Who suggested it? Certainly not me.

Military action now underway against Iraq is lawful and fully authorized by the Congress in section 3(a) of Public Law 107-243, (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002) which passed the Senate on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23, and which passed the House of Representatives on that same date by a vote of 296-133.

Perhaps you ought to read it.

30 posted on 04/11/2003 10:07:31 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

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