Supreme Court or Supremacist Court: The Coming Constitutional Crisis

George Wythe College ^ | 10/19/04 | Oliver DeMille

[arthurus]

Mr Demille is wrong about the constitutionality of going to war without a Declaration of War. The Constitution gives the Congress the right to Declare war which means just exactly what it says, Congress may announce that a state of war exists. That is a significant power because it reorients the economy to fighting a war, renders the needs of the military paramount and gives the executive the powers to direct industries to produce for the war effort, called in Europe, Mobilization. WWII was the most recent time that such a Declaration and Mobilization was necessary. The Iraq war is a cheap war and has not required a Declaration. The president can, as Commander-in-Chief, do pretty much what he wanst with the military outside of the borders of the United States subject to the willingness of Congress to fund it.

[Richard Kimball]

L8R

[djreece]

marking

[MileHi]

bump

[Mark in the Old South]

You theory has some flaws. This problem is over 50 years old and the rights of people are being twisted and denied. Remember the last time such a thing went on for so long, it caused a civil war. The Dred Scott case was directly tied to the polarization and hardening of feelings in the country. Here is the real kick in the groin. Dred Scott won his case in the slave state he lived. The state high court would have set him free, it was the SCOTUS that had to put politics over the law. By the way it was not that unusual for a slave to win his/her freedom in court but the most common reason was they suffered an excessive beating. All the states had limits on the punishment of slaves. The guiding principle was taken from the Old Testament.

[Apogee]

Deuteronomy 23:15 (King James Version)
15Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

Always wondered how folks ignored this, if the system of laws is s'posed to be based upon scripture.


just tagging this artical for more thought in future.

[Mark in the Old South]

People ignore a lot of things they don't want to see, and some see what is not there. For instance some may not have noticed my reference to the laws on punishing slaves being based on the OT was limited to that aspect only. While some might presume I am claiming the entire system was Bible based and some do both. What can you do? People will see what they WANT to see.

[Apogee]

I hope yoiu didn't infer that I thought that you were claiming the entire system to be bible based. A lot of folks do however, make more or less such a claim (to a more or less degree of accuracy). I generally have thought of some of these laws as good examples of how folks pick and choose. You are precisely correct - it is often in what people want to see.

I really like the premise of this article.
I am ready to see the other branches trot it out, rather than enforcing whatever the self proclaimed supreme authorities declare.

[Mark in the Old South]

I did infer that very thing but wanted to give the benefit of doubt. Thank you for clarifying, I agree with all you said.