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

To: billbears; hchutch
It was to regulate commerce, not establish treaties of defense.

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.

277 posted on 07/11/2003 5:59:42 PM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies ]


To: Poohbah
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.

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.

279 posted on 07/11/2003 7:27:31 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | 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