Posted on 07/19/2007 8:31:22 AM PDT by uxbridge
Thanks for that. It seems almost prophetic. I do disagree with you and still think the Iraqi war should have been declared. We can debate constitutional law till we are blue in the face. I interpret it differently then you do.
If I was a congressman I’d like to think that I would never vote for anything affirming the UN and it’s resolutions. Which is simply one of Ron Paul principle.
BTW also thanks for not descending into all the name calling that is usually on these threads. I appreciate that.
So, if the libs, commies and drug addicts vote in the Republican primaries and help Ron Paul get the nomination, whatcha gonna do about it?
I am none of the above and I’m sure I’ll be voting for Ron in the primaries. For totally different reasons, of course.
He certainly has me fooled! It's not too late to join the winning side, support Ron Paul now! (You'll feel better if you do)
Nitpick alert. Actually it was the States and the people who gave the federal government its powers. The Constitution is a legal document that defines what those powers are.
But as P.J. O’Rourke has observed, the U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.
That attitude is what is wrong with our country today. Absolutely no respect for the Constitution. Government must bound by the law.
This statement is what's wrong with the country today. People opening their mouths without actually engaging the brain and thinking before communicating to others, looking for the incorrect insult aimed at what they THINK someone has said instead of what someone has ACTUALLY said.
I took and still take my oath to defend the Constitution very seriously and nothing, not one thing, I've said can in ANY way be translated in the real world to be having "absolutley no respect for the Constitution".....or that government is not or should not be bound by law. You manufactured those 2 strawmen so you could have your incorrect insult.
I very clearly said that Congresses are not bound by the rules (or methods/mannerisms) of past Congresses. It's a plain and very simple fact stated in that Constitution that I "have absolutely no respect for":
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings
Just because a Congress from 200 years ago conducted one of their proceedings, in which the Constitution doesn't clearly lay out the process of, in a particular manner with a particular method doesn't mean that all subsequent Congresses are bound to conduct their proceedings in the same manner with the same method. They each get to make and change their own rules of how their proceedings are conducted.....of COURSE "within the law" and "within the directives of the Constitution."
I also clearly said that, unless the Constitution clearly lays out how something the Congress does should be done (like how to override a veto or how to get an Amendment accomplished), then the Congress gets to "make up" the manner in which that something CAN be done. Again, a very simple and plain fact.....Congress gets to make up Congressional rules as the Congress sees fit. Each House gets to determine the rules of its preoceedings. Yes, within the law and within the directives of the Constitution.
....but future Congresses can do the same thing in another manner because THEY get to determine the rules of THEIR proceedings....yes, within the law and directives of the Constitution.
Concerning the item being discussed: Just because the 1st 5th or 10th or any other Congress "declares war" in a particular manner....doesn't mean the 108th or 110th Congress has to "declare war" in the same manner.....BECAUSE the Constitution does not specifically direct how a "declaration of war" must be conducted. "Declaring war" is a proceeding of the Congress and the Congress gets to determine the rules of their proceedings....yes, within the law and Constitutional directives.
Really, is that all there is? Just a bad attempt at an insult?
Source for this claim that isn’t a Ron Paul propagands site?
Seems the only source for this is a couple of fringe bloggers. One reported it and they all site each other as the source.
LOL
You know as well as I do that the reason we pass resolutions such as "Authorization to Use Force" are to dodge the requirements of the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
Since the Renaissance, it has been established that formal declarations of war should be employed not only to let the combatant countries know that the state of war exists, but to let neutral countries know as well so they don't become inadvertently involved. The Hague Conventions codified this requirement in International Law.
In addition, the format of a Declaration of War while not referenced as a template by the Constitution, is fairly straightforward and never bears the title "Authorization to Use Force". It does, however, mention the term "State of War" - Which has very specific meaning and automatically invokes the rules of war as laid out by the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
Both Iraq and the US are signatories to the conventions, so they're both bound by international law to comply. However, without that formal Declaration of War, we can claim that the conventions don't apply because we're not at war...formally.
What we've been doing for the last sixty years is eroding hundreds of years of established international law to the point where no one will follow it - Why should they?
Col Sanders
the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties
Ooops, there goes THAT non-argument. "LOL" We don't "not declare war", in a manner that would satisfy YOU, or pass an "Authorization to Use Force"....to get out of following the Geneva Conventions. THAT is a falsehood. We pass an "Authorization to Use Force" to satisfy the necessary clauses of the War Powers Resolution.
In addition, the format of a Declaration of War while not referenced as a template by the Constitution, is fairly straightforward and never bears the title "Authorization to Use Force". It does, however, mention the term "State of War" - Which has very specific meaning and automatically invokes the rules of war as laid out by the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
Where exactly IS this "format" found..."LOL". I keep reading the Constitution and looking for it, but it's not there. THAT means that the Congress can "declare war" in any damned format they so choose so long as their purpose is to "declare war" (send our boys into armed conflict)....if it HAD to state something about being in a "state of war", the Constitution would dictate that instead of giving the Congress the control of how to handle their own proceedings. The "very specific" meaning you claim is also a falsehood as the GC is not only in effect for all cases of "declared war" AND "any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties".....but ALSO for "all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."
Primary sources are your friend...."LOL" I'd suggest reading , you know, the Geneva Conventions themselves instead of wherever you're getting your factually incorrect information from.
Both Iraq and the US are signatories to the conventions, so they're both bound by international law to comply. However, without that formal Declaration of War, we can claim that the conventions don't apply because we're not at war...formally.
This is just another form of the very same falsehood...."LOL" According to the GC, the GC applies to "all declared wars, or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties and also", AND for "all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."....even if the "other country with which we are at war with" is not a signatory, the GC STILL applies to those that ARE signatories:
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
"LOL"....better find a new source of information.
What we've been doing for the last sixty years is eroding hundreds of years of established international law to the point where no one will follow it - Why should they?
The last 60 years?????? "LOL" Better check your U.S. history again. We've been doing this for the entire history of the United States.....starting with the Framers engagement in the Quasi-French War without a "declaration of war".....the Barbary Wars without a "declaration of war"....234 instances of U.S. military actions, very few of them "declared wars"...."LOL"
Really, if you have that much of a lack of understanding of the Geneva Conventions....you should immediately resign your commission, Col. I don't want you leading our boys into battle claiming that they don't have to follow the Geneva Conventions.
the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties
Ooops, there goes THAT non-argument. "LOL" We don't "not declare war", in a manner that would satisfy YOU, or pass an "Authorization to Use Force"....to get out of following the Geneva Conventions. THAT is a falsehood. We pass an "Authorization to Use Force" to satisfy the necessary clauses of the War Powers Resolution.
Apparently, it is you who needs a class in rudimentary reading comprehension.
You left out half of the argument - We declare war to satisfy the Constitution, which required the declaration to satisfy not only the requirement that the people decide when we commit troops to something, but to satisfy International Law in existence when the Constitution was penned.
Since the inception and our signing of the Hague Conventions, we are required to declare war upon any other signatory when conflict arises. In such times as we cannot, like if the other country has a missile fueled and about to fire and we have to take it out, we're free to act in our defense, but it is expected that we would retro-actively commit to a state of war.
Since the inception and our signing of the Geneva Conventions, supplemental to the Hague Conventions, once we declare war, or if we're involved in a conflict with another signatory, the Conventions apply.
If we don't declare war, we can say that neither Convention applies. This is what we've been doing since the end of WWII.
And I have no clue why you bolded the portion above as it bolsters my argument, not yours. Both the US and Iraq are "Contracting Parties" as signatories to both Conventions.
Where exactly IS this "format" found..."LOL". I keep reading the Constitution and looking for it, but it's not there.
It's because you're looking in the wrong damn place. The Constitution requires a Declaration of War as per recognized International Law since before this country existed. It's understood and there's no way the framers figured that morons like our present representatives would ever be in control enough to bypass the method then claim it was okay because there wasn't a template in the Constitution itself.
<-------------snip irrelevant chatter ---------------->
You can dress it up however you like, but you can't change the facts. While we have had many a foray into conflict outside our borders, before 1958 all of these were minor conflicts and most involved the Constitutional (and Internationally recognized) perscription of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. In addition, most were not against recognized countries but kleptocracies and groups of pirates. One can argue that we staged an invasion during the first Barbary War, but it would be a tenuous argument at best.
We've done our best work since WWII ended and we decided that the rules no longer really applied to us - As long as we wanted to do it, we did.
Bottom line: We invade other countries without declaring war so that the Hague and Geneva Conventions, along with a plethora of other International Laws and diplomatic issues, can be avoided.
Col Sanders
Since the inception and our signing of the Geneva Conventions, supplemental to the Hague Conventions, once we declare war, or if we're involved in a conflict with another signatory, the Conventions apply.
THIS is false, say it once again and it's a lie. We have to abide by the Conventions WITH OR WITHOUT declaring war on someone....as very clearly laid out in the Conventions. It says it right there in Article II that you will not read or comprehend or both....I'll spoon-feed it once more:
the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties
Try again.....what part of "or ANY other armed conflict" doyou not understand?
If we don't declare war, we can say that neither Convention applies. This is what we've been doing since the end of WWII.
Fale false false:
the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties
When ARE you gonna read the actual Conventions? THEY contradict you, but I suppose you know better.
And I have no clue why you bolded the portion above as it bolsters my argument, not yours.
....because you cannot read simple english....as your new claim is false. It bolsters MY refutation of your premise that "we didn't 'declare war' because we didn't want the Conventions to apply"...a patently false premise because, ACCORDING TO THE CONVENTIONS, they apply to "all cases of"...get this...."declared war".....AND....here it comes.....get ready for it....."any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties
You got that, Col...or do you need a staff officer to 'splain it? The Conventions apply to ANY ARMED CONFLICT between 2 high contracting parties......regardless of a "declaration" that would satisfy you. It doesn't say "only if war is declared", it very clearly in the simplist english says "ANY ARMED CONFLICT" between high contracting parties.
Both the US and Iraq are "Contracting Parties" as signatories to both Conventions.
...and as such, the Conventions apply to ANY ARMED CONFLICT between the 2.....as Article II states.
A letter or Marquis is not a declaration of war....nor does it involve sending "our boys" ANYWHERE.....it's for hiring privateers/merceneries to do the work for us...in our name. We've sent OUR BOYS to fight for us without a declaration that would satisfy you for 200+ years. Big conflict or small, doesn't matter...we either send our boys in accordance with the Constitution or we do not.
Really, what part of "the present Convention shall apply to..........any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties" don't you understand? ANY ARMED CONFLICT really isn't that hard to get the meaning of.
Your "botton line" is completely infactual....as we HAVE to follow the Conventions because they apply to "ANY ARMED CONFLICT which may arise between two or more high contracting parties." They apply with a declaration that would satisfy you. They apply without a declaration that would satisfy you.
Really, it's in quite plain english.
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.