Posted on 07/11/2003 2:11:48 AM PDT by Smile-n-Win
No, and let me answer with a question of my own. Where do you find this inane right it is the responsibility of the general government of this nation to give said people that freedom?
Are you of the opinion that they cannot handle freedom?
Again, I don't care if they can handle freedom or not. It is neither the right nor responsibility of this nation to provide said freedom to them. Unless you can point out said responsibilities in the Constitution, it isn't.
Therefore it is not within the scope of the federal gubment to involve itself. The Constitution defines what the Fed may do, all else is outside it's jurisdiction period.
You're right, the Air Force is not covered but it could easily be argued that this would fall under national defense. However to argue that mutual defense treaties were included in the original intent by the men who founded this nation is not only mistaken, but ignores also the farewell speech given by our first President, which quite plainly spells out his intent and the intent of many of the men who signed the document less than a decade before
While stranger things have happened (ala the CIA et al) I doubt that Baywatch is the pinacle of our percieved transgresions.
Provocation in my mind would a be direct and credible threat.
Imminent, as in someone pulling their gun but not necessarily pointing it at me. The mere existence of a gun is not a provocation and neither then is the verbal threat of using it.
The three in combination, existence of the threat (i.e gun, missile etc), the stated intent to use it against me or mine, and finally the preparation that will normally have to occur before the weapon can be used (i.e. pulling it) would seem to me to be credible provication warranting a preemptive action.
Exactly sunshine. So Monroe's Doctrine and every bastardization since has no legal standing either. Because it wasn't in the document. And what does the document say about powers not explicit in the document? Where do those belong? Hmmmmm... and we all know what happened to that amendment
Article 1, Section 10 makes it pretty clear that the states are NOT permitted to exercise any foriegn policy of their own:
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Article 2, Section 2, however, clearly points to giving the Executive the power to handle foreign policy:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls....
Or, how about these from Article 1, section 8?
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
All of these powers involve the conduct of foreign policy and the maintenance of our ability to do so. Exactly what course is charted is for the President and Congress to work out, through the normal checks and balances.
Morally justified for who? The US or Britain and France? - whose understanding of foreign policy is to meddle and dominate in other peoples' affairs - the very countries that carved portions of historic German territory populated with German peoples out of the Kaiser's nation and handed said land and people over to other countries that did not even exist till Britain and France dreamed them up causing resentments that brought Hitler to power and gave him excuses and justification for belligerence. May I also remind you that the current mess in the middle east is the result of the wondrous work of them as well. Intervention does not have a successful track record. Here we are in another century still fighting the leftovers of last centuries alliances and wars.
Getting back to the morality of it - are you saying that the US would have been justified to run over to Europe in the 30's and take out the German government? Or was that job just for the Europeans? The point of my other posts was that we as a nation turned our back on the founding father's sage advise to stay out of permante "entangling alliances - free trade to all, malice towards none" and "do not go around the world looking for dragons to slay". The founders advise is not passé, it is timeless and very wise. Entanglements beget more entanglements. The history of the US from the Span Am War on, all of it from our loss of liberty to taxes and regulations to cemeteries filled with hundreds of thousands, cut down in there youth - all this is a glaring testimony to the profound wisdom of our founders and the foolishness of the globalists and interventionist.
If you still think it is moral to go around the world to liberate people from suffering and making it safe for democracy then how as a conservative can you criticize liberals when they want to take your money and use it for midnight basketball games or subsidizing the irresponsible and lazy? If it is immoral to take your neighbors' money for that than how is it moral to take it and spend it abroad? How can conservatives bemoan the evil of income tax and welfare then demand profligate spending overseas? If one wants to rationalize than I say why should we send welfare moneys around the world when here at home our people could use a little more welfare (forget about not spending the money and lowering taxes). I'm sure you'll retort with a national security argument - go back and visit my last post to you and think about how legit our national defense claims are. The whole world is a mess of liberals making and more liberalism will not cure it but it will ruin us.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Doesn't say anything about preemptive strikes at the state level and one would assume that this was the intent from the wording at the federal level as well. Oh, but I guess Hussein could have weapons ready in what? 45 minutes? I guess if he was planning on throwing beans at us from 5000 miles away....
The power to make treaties is granted whole and complete to the federal government, does not have any specific limitations aside from the requirement of a 2/3rds vote of all Senators present to ratify the treaty. If it were to be specifically restricted to regulation of commerce, then it would say so and would forbid the Congress from enacting any treaty of mutual defense.
Doesn't say anything about preemptive strikes at the state level and one would assume that this was the intent from the wording at the federal level as well.
Uh, wrong.
States are not allowed to make war unless invaded or in imminent danger of same.
The federal government is granted the power to declare war (to Congress). This power is whole and complete; it is not restricted in any way to "defensive war" (which in itself raises interesting questions--such as what the exact definition of a "defensive war" is. If the Congress decides tomorrow to declare war on Canada and votes that way, we're at war with Canada, period. The Constitution does not mandate a particular form for said declaration, either.
The fact that an individual does not wear a lapel pin indicating his membership in a particular philosophical subset does not mean he is not ideologically part of that subset. Especially true for high profile officals.
....is, as I see it, a symptom of a mistaken approach to foreign policy. The objective is to find the source of the mistake.
You lost me here. Whose mistake and objective do you refer to, Paul's or the neocons?
Regards
J.R.
Because the thought never occurred to them I imagine that this 'free' nation of states would ever engage in a preemptive war. They assumed (wrongly especially after 1865) that the states would keep the power of the federal, now national, government in check. Since that balance of checks between the state governments and the national government is gone, there's nothing to stop Washington DC telling us what the document is supposed to mean. Ah, but that's the wonders of a 'living breathing' document (which used to be just the liberal cry) isn't it? It doesn't necessarily say we can't do it, so we must be able to do it, is that it?
Why bother with the document in the first place? Why hold it in such high regard? If we're not going to bother following it except when it suits our needs to interpret it, why not just go ahead and flush the Constituion of these United States down the toilet?
Good Christ, if the Founders of this nation could see what has been wrought in their name, it would sicken them to no end.
The neo-con support for religion?
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.