Posted on 09/14/2002 5:32:18 AM PDT by Boonie Rat
To: exodus
"...Mideast stability and it's effect on the oil economy is an entirely legitimate interest, if you want to boil it down to that."
# 123 by Dave in Eugene of all places
I agree, the governmental lie that we need Mideast oil is more than enough reason to go to war.
If they drank green tea and we took offense at the drinking of green tea, THAT would be a legitimate reason to go to war.
I fully support a war of conquest in the Middle East, but I demand a LEGAL war.
Our Constitution says that Congress has the war power. Let them exercise it.
Declare war.
To: exodus
"Terms at gunpoint are not binding ?When you surrender because you no longer have hope of winning, you ARE at the mercy of the victor. Only in relatively recent times has being on the losing side not meant execution or enslavement for life.."
# 126 by hoosierham
I agree with most everything on your long post, except that, as I said, an agreement forced on one of the parties is not binding.
I agree that surrender terms should be followed if the vanquished party has any honor, even though the agreement, being forced, is not legally binding.
Requirements that you not attack your neighbor, that you pay restitution, or that you give up claim to territory are legitimate terms that an honorable sovereign would comply with.
However, to require the surrender of a basic right, such as self defense, is an un-acceptable burden on any man, PARTICULARLY if that man is the sovereign of a nation.
No honorable man would abide by such a "requirement."
To: exodus*************************
"The War Powers Act is the law of the land whether you like it or not..."
# 127 by jwalsh07
The War Powers Act doesn't say what you think it says.
It DOES NOT give the President power to wage war as he sees fit. It is a LIMITATION on the war powers already usurped by Presidential officeholders since WW 2. It passed over the veto of President Nixon, and has been disregarded by every President since it's passage, including both Presidents Bush.
The President is limited to 8 months of un-sanctioned military action, and then, "...the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces..." [SEC. 5. (b)]
We have been bombing the nation of Iraq for years, without a Declaration of War, without the specific authorization of Congess, in direct violation of the War Powers Act.
Just as an individual is fully justified in lying and hiding his weapons, so a nation is justified in lying and hiding it's weapons from foreign invaders.
To: exodus
There is no civilization without law. There are a whole mess of bad-laws and confiscating privately owned weapons is one of them. It doesn't happen often..."
That said, the United States has not forced you to hide or lie ... unless you are a convicted felon ... on probation ... or parole and you desire to obtain a weapon..."
# 131 by harrowup
"It doesn't happen often" is not a very good defense.
It's also not true. I can read every day about a weapon being confiscated somewhere in our nation.
Illegal laws have forced many otherwise law abiding ex-cons to hide "illegal" weapons.
The fear of even more draconian laws to come has caused hundreds of thousands of other citizens to feel forced to hide weapons.
The illegal requirement to have every weapon registered with the government causes even more thousands of citizens to hide weapons that would be legal IF they were registered.
You put too much trust in our government.
To: exodus*************************
"...We are just as sovereign today as we were when the United States signed its first treaty ... the only difference is that today ... the world is a quieter place because of the United Nations ... with a little help from its best friend, the USA..."
"...We are about to tidy things up. I don't happen to agree that we should ... but we AND the UN have the right..."
# 131 by harrowup
Today, the President is sovereign, NOT the people.
Our Constitution doesn't allow that.
The U.N. doesn't have the "right" to send our nation into war. That is a Congressional power.
We are supposed to be a Republic, with laws based upon our written Constitution.
With the President usurping the legislative power of war, and the Patriot Act legally superseding the Bill of Rights, our Rule of Law has been shown to be a toothless vestige of yesteryear.
The War Powers Act is un-Constitutional.*************************
To: exodus
Cite?
# 132 by Roscoe
The Constitution, Roscoe.
Congress is charged with deciding if our nation should go to war. There is no provision for delegating the power to make war to the Executive. War is a legislative decision.
Our elected representatives decide if we, as a people, should go to war. It isn't a subject for ONE MAN to decide.
If Congress passed the Exodus War Powers Act, conferring the power to decide whether to go to war on me, you would agree that they don't have the Constitutional authority to delegate that power to me.
It illegal for Congress to GIVE that power to any man, not even if that man is the President.
War powers act.
If you think it's unconstitutional, then you should have Ron Paul challenge it in court.
To: jwalsh07
And trailer park "common law courts" don't count.
# 138 by Roscoe
I have more power to decide what the law is than even a Supreme Court judge.
The jury comes from "common" law, Roscoe.
The power of the jury is even accepted by the Supreme Court.
You're showing your ignorance, and in light of the display you've put on in this thread, that's nearly a redundant statement.
Why don't you read the War Powers Act (bring along a dictionary) before you go making assinine statements with zero basis in truth.
P.S. The protologist's office called, they've located your head.
The disembodied voices in your head told you so?
To: Ragin1*************************
"...Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli 'and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . .' But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view."
# 147 by Roscoe
Jefferson was right in his understanding of the Constitution, and should have stood by his beliefs rather than bowing to the misunderstanding of Congress.
In less time than Congress took to argue their interpetation of what a state of war "IS", they could have declared war and removed all doubt.
The Patriot Act plainly violates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It was almost unanimous in it's acceptance by Congressmen.
The Patriot Act is still illegal, even though Congress passed it, even though the President signed it, and even if it survives Supreme Court review.
Congressional acceptance of a violation of the Constitution does not lessen the violation.
I have more power to decide what the law is than even a Supreme Court judge.*************************
To: exodus
The disembodied voices in your head told you so?
# 215 by Roscoe
I understand the duties of a citizen, and the power of the jury.
To: exodus*************************
"The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
# 217 by Roscoe
Exactly, Roscoe.
Common law is the voice of sovereign citizens.
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.