The Supreme Legislation hasn't ever taken a case that specifically involved the I.R.S. - -- - So what does that prove ??
...and I, quite frankly, don't care what the order was or who gave it....If it is something that goes against this Nation's Constitution...it is wrong !!
Plain...Pure...and simple
You said you were warning me. There is no reason or need to warn someone except if something bad is going to be a consequence. I am still mystified as to the nature of that post.
I agree with you 110%. Now, if you would kindly point to the line in the Constitution where the Macedonia mission was forbidden- I will humbly accept my comeuppance. I'm not saying it's legal in a good way. I'm saying it was legal in a technical way- which is all that really counts when you're arguing your case before a Court Martial or a judge of any kind. New didn't have a leg to stand on legally.
I didn't throw the Supreme Court mention out there as a way of refuting you. This is not a personal contest - me against you, mano a mano, winner take all. I'm pretty emotionless about it to tell you the truth. I would like for the Supreme Court to take the case. That way there would be a final answer from the only legal authority our Constitution gives us on Constitutional matters.
My point was- until the Supreme Court takes the case you have to go with the law the way it is written. No where does it forbid the Commander in Chief from issuing such an order. In that sense, Clinton's order was Constitutional and legal. The Constitution states Treaties are to be considered as part of the supreme law of the land and that's the pertinent bit. The Constitution also grants the Congress the authority to create rules governing the use of the land and naval forces. Like I said in my post- had the Congress simply passed a law saying it was illegal for a President to use the military in this fashion- New would've been off the hook. But Congress did not do so. They have an equal share of the blame here because they possessed the true power to do something and they didn't. But failing the Congressional Act of the Supreme Court interpretation, it was totally legal.