Breaking: Ron Paul introduces Marque and Reprisal Bills in House

Ron Paul | 10/10/01 | demidog

[Demidog]

You're already agreeing that mention of a Post Office implied that delivery of the mail is just a legislative detail.

That is because even a moron knows that the power to deliver the mail is in there. But that's it. A power was delegated and nothing more than that.

Where's the implication in the military situation?

Defense is explicit. The Congress was given the authority to provide for the rules of conduct within the military structure but was never given the power to use the military for anything other than defense. That's the only lawful authority that exists in regard to the military.

[Dog Gone]

Congress was given control over the military, which was duly established by the Constitution. Your insistence that the Founders somehow IMPLIED that the armed forces would only be used within the borders is absurd and completely contrary to your whole line of reasoning so far.

[Demidog]

Congress was given control over the military, which was duly established by the Constitution. Your insistence that the Founders somehow IMPLIED that the armed forces would only be used within the borders is absurd and completely contrary to your whole line of reasoning so far.

I said nothing of the sort. They didn't imply anything. They stated specifically that they were to be used for the defense of the United States.

It is you who is arguing that they implied that the military could be used to invade countries and provide "humanitarian" support. They implied nothing. They said explicitly that the military and militia was to be used in concert to repel invasions and protect the Nation.

[Dog Gone]

They stated specifically that they were to be used for the defense of the United States.

It is pointless to argue with you when you are intellectually dishonest.

There are NO duties stated, specifically or otherwise, for the armed forces in the Constitution. None.

You are the one who maintains that there are NO implied powers.

If you were intellectually honest, you would argue that they have no powers or duties, because you maintain you can't imply such things into the Constitution.

Yet, you maintain that it is necessarily implied that they were established for defense, and you say there is an implied prohibition against their use in another country. That is despite the fact that any moron knows that armies are used for attacking and defending, and that such a self-prohibition by a country would have been unprecedented.

You are perfectly willing to imply bizarre things into the Constitution that match your beliefs, while adamantly denying that you are doing so.

I don't care if you have a warped view of the Constitution, but if you can't argue logically, then I'm not going to waste any more time.

[Demidog]

Yet, you maintain that it is necessarily implied that they were established for defense

This is the second time you've said this. And it's false. It is not implied. It is explicitly stated that the only use for the military by the president and Congress is in the event of national defense.

[Dog Gone]

No, you are, apparently intentionally, confusing the Militia with the military. Separate concepts.

[Demidog]

I am not confusing a thing. If no new powers were granted when the military was created then the only powers that exist for their use are to repel invasion and insurrection.

National defense.

[Dog Gone]

If no new powers were granted when the military was created then the only powers that exist for their use are to repel invasion and insurrection.

You're reaching that conclusion how? By IMPLICATION???

You are implying powers, my friend.

[Demidog]

You're reaching that conclusion how? By IMPLICATION???

Not at all. Unless you can point to new powers granted then the only powers that exist are the ones already explicitly stated in the constitution. No implication necessary.

You are implying powers, my friend. Keep repeating that. It won't get any more true as time passes.

[Dog Gone]

Unless you can point to new powers granted then the only powers that exist are the ones already explicitly stated in the constitution. No implication necessary.

Fine. Please post the explicit power given the army and navy in the Constitution so we can all see them.

I want everyone to see these explicit powers you keep referring to.

[Demidog]

I think you're confused. There is no power whatsoever given to the Army and Navy (or the organized militia). The only branches of government which hold any power are the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches.

Now you get back to us when you find that any of the three branches of government are given the authority to USE any military body in existence for anything other than to execute the laws of the Union, repel invasions or put down insurrections.

[Dog Gone]

I'm not confused at all. Your refusal to point to where the branches of government were authorized to use the army or navy for ANYTHING, including self-defense is understandable, because it doesn't exist.

You want to mix the duties of the Militia into the mix because its duties are spelled out, but that's either confusion on your part or deliberate obfuscation. Either way, it's not accurate.

The bottom line is that the Constitution authorizes the creation of the armed forces but does not spell out their duties, or any limitation on them. Can you admit that?

You are implying both a duty AND a limitation on them that simply is not there, while in the same breath you are arguing that it's impermissible to make such implications. It's simply amazing to watch.

[Demidog]

I'm not confused at all. Your refusal to point to where the branches of government were authorized to use the army or navy for ANYTHING, including self-defense is understandable, because it doesn't exist.

Untrue. It's right there in the passages I quoted. It is you who have acknowledged that no other powers are implied or stated. I think you're finally getting it.

[Dog Gone]

It's right there in the passages I quoted.

Oh, come on. You're not that dense. You quoted the Constitutional provision relating specifically to the Militia. Only the Militia. So it's not "right there."

It doesn't exist.

[Dog Gone]

It is you who have acknowledged that no other powers are implied or stated.

Please point to where I made that clearly erroneous statement.

[Demidog]

You keep claiming the the passage I cited only applied to the military. This is false:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

[The final phrase there could be construed to only apply to the militia but I do not believe this is so. My opinion is bolstered by the fact that the Congress is prohibited from funding the military for longer than two years at a time.]

The Congress has the power to:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Thus the President may not use the military at his discretion unless and until one of the specific circumstances arises which cannot wait for Congressional approval as laid out in the Militia act of 1792.

But the final nail in the coffin of your dead argument is what each state is guranteed by ratifying and agreeing to the constitution and its provisions:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Specific, limited and explicit powers. The constitution refutes your argument. Handily, I might add.

[Demidog]

You keep claiming the the passage I cited only applied to the military. This is false:

Sloppy. This should have read:

You keep claiming the the passage I cited only applied to the militia. This is false:

[Dog Gone]

You keep claiming the the passage I cited only applied to the military. This is false:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

[The final phrase there could be construed to only apply to the militia but I do not believe this is so. My opinion is bolstered by the fact that the Congress is prohibited from funding the military for longer than two years at a time.]

Oh, so in the Demidog world, the United States wouldn't have a standing army or navy. They would just be called to service when the need arose. Interesting, and completely contrary with the earlier provisions of Section 8, which call for "maintaining" such forces.

The Congress has the power to:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Thus the President may not use the military at his discretion unless and until one of the specific circumstances arises which cannot wait for Congressional approval as laid out in the Militia act of 1792.

Of course, it says no such thing. The Militia Act of 1792 is not part of the Constitution and your continuing reference to it is somewhat puzzling. The Constitution plainly says that only Congress can declare War, and it can issue those now rather obsolete letters, and make Rules of Capture. It doesn't say anything about what the President can do as Commander in Chief.

A reasonable person might think that the President can use the armed forces for whatever Congress authorizes, since that seems to be the underlying principle involved. Interestingly, that's how the rest of us interpret it, going back to the beginning of this country.

But the final nail in the coffin of your dead argument is what each state is guranteed by ratifying and agreeing to the constitution and its provisions:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Say what? Because the Federal Government promised to protect the states from invasion, you read that as a limitation on using the armed forces for other things? That is such bizarre logic that it's hard to even argue with you. If you promise make a phone call, does that restrict you from brushing your teeth? Your arguments are increasingly bizarre.

Specific, limited and explicit powers. The constitution refutes your argument. Handily, I might add.

I have spent several hours here trying to reason with you, and it's clearly futile. We are obviously not going to agree.

[Scholastic]

Bump.

Good point on how most people, even liberals, always claim to "support the constitution". At times I think Im living in an Orwell novel, everyone seems to put stock in what is said and not what is done.

Thanks