Posted on 01/11/2007 4:32:27 PM PST by dogbyte12
You may be thinking of "textualism" which is Scalia's philosophy (and which which I agree).
Actually I don't know what point you were trying to illustrate with your homosexualism example. Please restate.
jas3
"So you, too, think we should pull out of Iraq?"
I would not personally pull out of Iraq right now. But I believe that a free Iraq is of less overall importance to the long term succes of America than most here might.
I would prefer to see America's economic engine unleashed. I would prefer to see a true fiscal conservative in office. Conservative judges appointed. Shrinking of government. Reduction of entitlements. Overhaul of the IRS, medicare, medicaid and SS. Movement away from socialism instead of towards it as we have been seeing from too many neo-cons of late.
Social conservatism is not interesting to me. Iraq is only interesting if we can actually win it-- otherwise it is a waste.
So, I'd prefer it if Paul was a bit more hawkish-- but I will accept his shortcomings in favor of what he is-- a TRUE CONSERVATIVE in the classic sense.
Before I answer that, I'd just like to note that the kind of discussion we are having is what Free Republic used to be like before it became wide open with Chat and other things which are totally unrelated to conservatism.
What I was trying to say is the words in the Constitution do not change their meaning with the passage of time. "Gay", had it been used by the Framers, would always mean "happy" because it did not mean "homosexual" when the Constitution was drafted. The fact that the word almost exclusively means "homosexual" today could not fairly be construed as meaning "homosexual" if that word had been used in the Constitution.
The words of the Constitution are frozen in time, the time of its drafting.
OH right...I absolutely agree with you on that.
jas3
What domestic issues do you disagree with Paul on?
On domestic issues, Paul is more consistent with the GOP platform than President Bush.
You do realize that Paul served in the Air Force, right?
I'm sure he has many regrets in his life.
OK, Justice O'Connor.
Excellent post. Just excellent.
Nowhere does the Constitution grant the authority to declare war on an idealism.
A country, yes, but not a system of beliefs, whether WE think some of those 'beliefs' are insane or not. Isolating the countries responsible for hosting terrorists until they surrendered or had managed to almost totally eat their own would have worked wonders, IMHO.
Its like having a war against religion while screaming everyone should have freedom of religion.
It's hypocritical.
Acknowledging someone else's inherent right to choose their beliefs doesn't mean we have to stand in line to be slaughtered, but it doesn't give us the right to shred the Constitution, either.
Too many here do the same as they complain about the Rats doing...they just want the Constitution twisted in their direction.
To 'change it', just this once, NO MATTER the justification or rationale, makes the document meaningless.
Besides, you'd be amazed how fast someone would 'find' a terrorist for a million dollar letter of marque, don't you?
:-)
It simply grants the power to declare War. Nothing more and nothing less.
You're spinning.
Why is it the first response to a post always an insult? There's no 'spin' here.
-----
The Constitution grants the power to declare war in Section 11, but that power is restrained by Section 10:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
That means the power to declare war is governed by the Law of Nations.
----
A "war" has rules...at least as far as the Constitution is concerned. The Constitution operates under the Laws of Nations. The Law of Nations is an extension of the law of Nature and Nature's god of the Founders.
The most commonly known treatise was a four volume work written in 1758 by a Swiss legal scholar, Emmerich de Vattel.
-----
And from a couple of Constitutional scholars:
When war is duly declared, it is not merely a war between this and the adverse government in their political characters. Every man is, in judgment of law, a party to the acts of his own government, and a war between the governments of two nations, is a war between all the individuals of the one, and all the individuals of which the other nation is composed. Government is the representative of the will of all the people, and acts for the whole society. This is the theory in all governments, and the best writers on the law of nations concur in the doctrine, that when the sovereign of a state declares war against another sovereign, it implies that the whole nation declares war, and that all the subjects of the one, are enemies to all the subjects of the other. Very important consequences concerning the obligations of subjects, are deducible from this principle.
James Kent, Commentaries 53-67
-----
§ 1171. But the express power "to grant letters of marque and reprisal" may not have been thought wholly unnecessary, because it is often a measure of peace, to prevent the necessity of a resort to war. Thus, individuals of a nation sometimes suffer from the depredations of foreign potentates; and yet it may not be deemed either expedient or necessary to redress such grievances by a general declaration of war. Under such circumstances the law of nations authorizes the sovereign of the injured individual to grant him this mode of redress, whenever justice is denied to him by the state, to which the party, who has done the injury, belongs. In this case the letters of marque and reprisal (words used as synonymous, the latter (reprisal) signifying, a taking in return, the former (letters of marque) the passing the frontiers in order to such taking,) contain an authority to seize the bodies or goods of the subjects of the offending state, wherever they may be found, until satisfaction is made for the injury. This power of reprisal seems indeed to be a dictate almost of nature itself, and is nearly related to, and plainly derived from that of making war. It is only an incomplete state of hostilities, and often ultimately leads to a formal denunciation of war, if the injury is unredressed, or extensive in its operations.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 1833
(Emphasis mine)
-----
The only type of war that our nation can declare is war against another nation.
Anything else is unconstitutional.
I didn't insult you. But you're still wrong.
The Framers may not have envisioned a war against anything other than a nation, but they certainly did not forbid it.
If Congress wishes to authorize the President to use force for any purpose, it certainly can. To assert that this nation is constrained from acting in its own interest by the Constitution in this regard is absurd.
As 'spin' is an accusation of twisting the truth to suit a purpose, you sir, did INDEED insult me.
----
But you're still wrong.
Ah, the your-wrong-because-I-say-so school of thought. Do you have any evidence to bolster your assertion that I am in error?
Do you think the phrase 'law of nations' being in the Constitution was an accident?
Just because Congress DID act in such a manner makes it okey-dokey to you?
Since we all know how closely todays government adheres to document, the THAT rather quashes the entire idea of having a Constitution enumerating specific powers in the first place, does it not?
-----
The Framers may not have envisioned a war against anything other than a nation, but they certainly did not forbid it.
LOL!
The Framers 'envisioned' a lot more than most people imagine, and legal scholars have stood by that vision.
It is not easy to perceive where this power could, with us, be more prudently placed. But it must be remembered, that we may be involved in a war without a formal declaration of it. In the year 1800, we were engaged in a qualified, but public, war with France; qualified, because it was only waged on the high seas--public, because the whole nation was involved in it. It was founded on the hostile measures authorized by congress against France, by reason of her unjust aggressions on our commerce--yet there was no declaration of war. In such a war we may also be involved by the conduct of the executive, without the participation of the legislature. The intercourse with foreign nations, the direction of the military and naval power, being confided to the president, his errors or misconduct may draw hostilities upon us. No other restraint appears to exist, than that of withholding the supplies to carry it on, which indeed congress can in no case grant beyond the term of two years. But in England, the king is, in this respect, equally dependent on the parliament, and its history shows that this dependence is not always adequate to prevent unpopular wars.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States
-----
If Congress wishes to authorize the President to use force for any purpose, it certainly can.
Congress can only exercise that authority legitimately given. It cannot give what it does not posses, and it does NOT posses the power to declare war in any manner other than that prescribed by established law.
-----
To assert that this nation is constrained from acting in its own interest by the Constitution in this regard is absurd.
Upholding the Constitution is the only interest government should have, and what's ABSURD is how so many Americans seem to think government is the only source capable of accurately deciphering the meaning of the Constitution.
------
It is not a function of government to teach the People the law. It is the duty of the People to learn the law for themselves.
Learn it, or remain ignorant.
The choice is yours.
Your mistake is believing that the Section 10 powers limit the Section 11 powers. I know of no case law that supports that contention, and I can think of no reason why the Framers would choose to do so.
You're arguing that al-Qaida can declare Jihad on us, but we can't declare war on them. You're not going to find many people who agree with you.
I've made no 'mistake'. Like all legal contracts, the Constitution is written in an effectual order. Each consecutive clause is affected by all the preceding clauses of that section, just like each of the Articles affect each other.
-----
I know of no case law that supports that contention, and I can think of no reason why the Framers would choose to do so.
It is obvious that the passage of an army through a foreign territory will probably be at all times inconvenient and injurious, and often would be eminently dangerous to the sovereign through whose dominion it passed. Such a practice would break down some of the most decisive distinctions between peace and war, and would reduce a nation to the necessity of resisting by war, an act not absolutely hostile in its character, or of exposing itself to the stratagems and frauds of a power whose integrity might be doubted, and who might enter the country under deceitful pretexts. It is for reasons like these that the general license to foreigners to enter the dominions of a friendly power, is never understood to extend to a military force; and an army marching into the dominions of another sovereign, may justly be considered as committing an act of hostility; and if not opposed by force, acquires no privilege by its irregular and improper conduct. It may however well be questioned whether any other than the sovereign power of the state be capable of deciding that such military commander is without a license.
But the rule which is applicable to armies, does not appear to be equally applicable to ships of war entering the ports of a friendly power. The injury inseparable from the march of an army through an inhabited country, and the dangers often, indeed generally, attending it, do not ensue from admitting a ship of war, without special license, into a friendly port. A different rule therefore with respect to this species of military force has been generally adopted. If, for reasons of state, the ports of a nation generally, or any particular ports be closed against vessels of war generally, or the vessels of any particular nation, notice is usually given of such determination.
(Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court)
The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon
-----
You're arguing that al-Qaida can declare Jihad on us, but we can't declare war on them.
No, but we can Constitutionally declare war on the countries that host them.
-----
You're not going to find many people who agree with you.
Since I really wasn't looking for any, it's rather immaterial.
-----
No source, no nothing except how 'wrong' I am.
Typical.
Your case law support doesn't support you in the least. It involves an unrelated matter.
You are insistent that you are correct, and you profess to not care if anyone agrees with you.
Rest assured, nobody does.
The more interesting question is why you would like to declare the war on terrorists unconstitutional, but even I am losing interest in that.
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.