The Lessons of 9/11

LewRockwell.com ^ | 22 April 04 | Rep. Ron Paul

[T'wit]

I didn't say anything about Paul and I didn't say anything about Madison. You are talking to yourself. Have a nice life.

[mrsmith]

I thought I made it clear that Madison signed the Venezuela foreign aid bill.

Oh well, sorry if we misunderstood one another. Have a nice life indeed.

[Erik Latranyi]

How little blame do I see for the liberals and their "peace dividend" that allowed cuts in defense and intelligence spending.

How little faith do I see in a war that is not run by politicians (like Reps from Texas) but by generals.

How little thought do I see in examining the problem of terrorism, a problem that will not be solved by diplomacy or deficit cutting or Representatives with agendas.

[inquest]

ANY war: Madison's war, Jefferson's Barbary War or Adams' Quasi-War to keep it to the Founding Fathers.

I don't think you understood my point. We weren't at war at the time the aid was rendered to Venezuela, and the aid was not of a military nature.

[mrsmith]

I said that as far as I knew the Venezuela aid was not given under the war clause. So it seems kinda strange that I should be asked to make the case that it was.
The poster that reasoned that it might have been war aid has since gone on to other pursuits...

I guess no one is going to say out loud that foreign aid is authorized under the war clause- but neither are they going to deny it.
Oh well there'll be more threads.

[inquest]

I said that as far as I knew the Venezuela aid was not given under the war clause.

Sorry, I misunderstood you then.

So it seems kinda strange that I should be asked to make the case that it was.

What I was asking you to do is make the case that foreign aid (outside of a wartime situation) is authorized by the Constitution at all, without reverting to the argument that since the Founders did it, it must have been constitutional.

[mrsmith]

"without reverting to the argument that since the Founders did it, it must have been constitutional. "

So their understanding of the Constitution is irrelevent to you too?

I confess I'm surprised you'd go that far.

[inquest]

Do I have to keep repeating myself to you? The first post of mine that you responded to on this thread (#32) addressed that point. Are you going to counteraddress my point, or do you intend to just keep going round and round in circles on this?

[mrsmith]

"counteraddress my point"

Sure. If people can redefine the Constitution merely by saying the Founding Fathers were fallible men, then it means nothing at all.

If there is more to your "point" than the usual "living constitution" crap you haven't stated it.

If we've both agreed that the war power authorizes foreign aid- you have only implicitly accepted that, though i give you credit for going that far on this thread- we can address the constitutionality of wars like Washington's, Adams', and Jefferson's.

Though if you're merely going to assert that they were fallible men and therefore the Constittuion can mean whatever else you feel like instead...

Why bother?

[inquest]

Though if you're merely going to assert that they were fallible men and therefore the Constittuion can mean whatever else you feel like instead...

No, not whatever I feel like having it mean, but what the text actually says, based on an honest reading thereof.

All I'm asking you to do is show in the text where and/or how it authorizes nonmilitary foreign aid.

[mrsmith]

If we've both agreed that the war power authorizes foreign aid- you have only implicitly accepted that, though i give you credit for going that far on this thread- we can address the constitutionality of wars like Washington's, Adams', and Jefferson's.

Instead of "nonmilitary aid" will you just agree that foreign aid is authorized in pursuance of war? An ally might want something else in return for support- like cash.

If so, then we can move on and discuss the Treaty Clause (within the constext of how those who wrote and ratified it understood it). It was the rationale for the venezuela aid - the one I asked you and the other guy to take a guess at way back at reply #33 when I said the War power was not, apparently, the rationale for the Venezuela aid.

[inquest]

If so, then we can move on and discuss the Treaty Clause (within the constext of how those who wrote and ratified it understood it). It was the rationale for the venezuela aid

Did we have a treaty with Venezuela (or whoever her colonial master was) that we were acting in pursuance of?

[mrsmith]

Does the war power authorize foreign aid?

This is a most bizarre discussion, will you at least say why you continually refuse to give an answer?

I can only assume that you will also just refuse to try to determine whether or not that the Treaty clause authorizes foreign aid either, or whether the Founding Father's understood that money may be spent in pursuing a treaty (well, of course I expect to be told that doesn't matter).

That makes this such a deliberately, I assume, pointless discussion.

[inquest]

Does the war power authorize foreign aid? This is a most bizarre discussion, will you at least say why you continually refuse to give an answer?

Because it's irrelevant, given the fact that we're not talking about the war power? But if you absolutely must have an answer (for whatever reason), then I'll simply say that I won't deny that it does, for the sake of the present argument.

Now can you answer the question I asked? And if the answer is no, can you give a coherent explanation as to how the treaty power gives Congress the power to do something in the absence of a treaty?

[mrsmith]

Sigh, if you insist on doing it socratically....

Does the Constitution authorize spending money to send someone to negotiate a treaty?

[inquest]

You mean to pay the salary of the official who's going to negotiate? I'd consider that a matter of course.

[mrsmith]

"You've been asked by more than one poster to explain how the Constitution authorizes foreign aid. It would be much appreciated if you'd answer that question, if you have an answer.
32 posted on 04/24/2004 1:49:49 PM EDT by inquest "

"it's irrelevant" whether the war powers authorizes foreign aid.

Gee, I hardly call that showing "much appreciation"! But maybe I'm too sensitive.

[mrsmith]

His fare, food, lodging, tips?

[inquest]

Well, if it's relevant to the discussion over the aid to Venezuela, then perhaps you could explain how.

I'd say I'd appreciate the explanation, but you might not believe me...

(it's true anyway)

[inquest]

OK, go on.

Somehow, this is also going to include "expenses" such as bailing out an entire city? Is that where you're going with this?