Posted on 09/14/2002 5:32:18 AM PDT by Boonie Rat
I hope and think they will.. But you never know with congress...
So why isn't Paul objecting on the grounds that the WPA is un-Constitutional instead of suggesting that Bush should seek a formal declaration from Congress per the WPA? And please, don't say that suggesting that the Constitution be followed is the same as saying that the WPA doesn't follow it. Those are two separate arguments, and Paul only makes one.
But exodus also says: ""He is limited by a written Constitution that says that he DOES NOT go to war without the permission of the citizens of his nation, in the form of a Declaration of War from the representatives in Congress."
Now you've got me confused, exodus. In one quote you say there is no requirement and in the next you say not only is there a requirement, but it is in writing. Which is it?
Regards,
Boot Hill
The other being that since it's inception, the rush to interpret the same language several ways was on. The FOUNDERS argued about what the constitution meant. 'Constitutionalists' live in some sort of ideal history where the founders all agreed on the 'plain meaning' of the constitution and there were no differences in opinion about what it meant until the founders died...
Puhleeeze. We have a place for determining constitutionality -- it's called the Supreme Court. Laws that are inacted -- even bad laws -- are in full force until someone challenges them and proves them to be in violation. If you say it's un-Constitutional, YOU have to prove it.
exodus says: "The power to declare war is a Legislative power."
Yes, but the power to fight a war is an executive power.
Note that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, is not co-CIC or deputy CIC, nor is he a member of the CIC committee or council. There is only one CIC and the President is it. The essence of the concept of command (noun) is to command (verb) and that includes the command to go to war. Unless you can show me an explicit article in the Constitution that requires the President to say "mother may I", then you cannot wish for, invent or pretend such a requirement exists. That is unless you care to "discover" such a requirement in some "penumbra" of the Constitution in much the same way that SCOTUS invents Constitutional provisions when they want one.
Regards,
Boot Hill
To: Boot Hill*************************
"These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force."
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article01/41.html#5
# 265 by Roscoe
Wow. That's an eyefull, Roscoe, but I read it.
"...the argument was advanced that the war power of the National Government is an attribute of sovereignty and hence not dependent upon the affirmative grants of the written Constitution..."
That's a stupid argument. What good is a written Constitution, if the powers of government don't need to be defined?
"... namely that the power to wage war is implied from the power to declare it..."
Well, that makes sense.
"...the colonies were a unit in foreign affairs, acting through a common agency--namely, the Continental Congress, composed of delegates from the thirteen colonies. That agency exercised the powers of war and peace, raised an army, created a navy, and finally adopted the Declaration of Independence. . . . It results that the investment of the Federal Government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution..."
Again, a stupid argument. The several States were just that, SEVERAL States. The fact that they acted in unison against a common enemy didn't result in a loss of sovereignty by any State.
That's the arguement I've been making in regard to the United Nations. We act at the direction of the U.N., inviolation of our own laws. We DID NOT give up any sovereignty when we joined the U.N.
The several States at war with England, DID NOT act as a single nation. They acted as allied States fighting against a common enemy.
Declaration of War
In the early draft of the Constitution presented to the Convention by its Committee of Detail, Congress was empowered ''to make war.'' Although there were solitary suggestions that the power should better be vested in the President alone, in the Senate alone, or in the President and the Senate, the sentiment of the Convention, as best we can determine from the limited notes of the proceedings, was that the potentially momentous consequences of initiating armed hostilities should be called up only by the concurrence of the President and both Houses of Congress.
In contrast to the English system, the Framers did not want the wealth and blood of the Nation committed by the decision of a single individual; in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, they did not wish to forego entirely the advantages of executive efficiency nor to entrust the matter solely to a branch so close to popular passions.
Just as I've said all along.
"...Sixty years later, the Supreme Court sustained the blockade of the Southern ports instituted by Lincoln in April 1861 at a time when Congress was not in session..."
The view of the majority was proclaimed by a unanimous Court a few years later when it became necessary to ascertain the exact dates on which the war began and ended. The Court, the Chief Justice said, must ''refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates; and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department, which may be, and, in fact, was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken. The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second.''
The President may act in an emergency, just as I've said. However, even though the absence of Congress constitutes an emergency, when Congress reconvenes, THE EMERGENCY IS OVER.
Once Congress is in session, a Declaration of War is required to comtinue a war. Otherwise, an aggressive President only has to wait until Congress goes home to declare war on his on power.
These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress.
These cases settled nothing. These cases merely set precedents, which is just another way of saying "don't bother me with any additional facts."
When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnamese War has been whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration.
There is only "controversy" if everyone avoids reading the Constitution and relying on the words written there. By relying on precedents, the opinions of judges, instead of the Constitution, all things are possible.
The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented, and the lower courts generally refused, on ''political question'' grounds, to adjudicate the matter.
The Cold "War," the Vietnam "war," the Korean "war."
Yes, they REALLY were wars, but they were illegal wars. They were fought without a Declaration of War.
In all that time, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case claiming that those wars were illegal. Our Judicial branch is just as corrupt as the other two branches of government.
In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant.
I can read and understand the plain meaning of the Constitution. I don't believe that I'm that much smarter than our elected leaders.
The plain fact is, our leadership is corrupt.
Our government plans and commits murder, and the agents who actually do the killing are promoted rather than being punished.
President Clinton sells military secrets to foreign enemies, and act of treason, and is protected by Republicans who are supposed to be his political opponents.
President Bush declares war as if he has the legal power to do so, and Congress accepts the war as fact.
Democrats and Republicans band together to pass the un-Constitutional Patriot act, and President Bush signs it into law. Never mind that if followed, our freedom ended the day it was signed.
To: exodus*************************
Article II/Section 2 of the Constitution -
The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States
The air force isn't mentioned here. Do you think that the Air Force shouldn't recognize the president as the commander in chief? After all, the constitution clearly states that he's the CIC of the Army and Navy.
# 270 by Isle of sanity in CA
You're being facetious.
I'll play.
The Air Force didn't start out as the "Air Force." It was a part of the Army. Later, when air combat became more important and more specialised, it branched off from the Army and was RENAMED "The Air Force."
The Marines have always been a part of the Navy. (Don't tell them, though)
There has been talk for decades about breaking them off from the Navy and creating a new branch of military called "The Marines." (Original, huh?)
If they do create a new branch called "Marines," it will still be under the overall command of the Commander in Chief.
To: exodus*************************
Begging the question (Circular Argument): Concluding that some statement is true because you have used it as a premise.
# 271 by Roscoe
Neet!
Thanks, Roscoe.
Without that Congressional decision to make war, the President is acting outside of the Constitutional limits placed upon the Executive branch*************************
To: exodus
If he directs the Air Force to fly sorties, isn't he acting outside of the Constitutional limits placed upon the executive branch? How about the Marine Corp (although technically they're part of the Dept of Navy)
# 274 by Isle of sanity in CA
If the sorties are flown over a country that might take offense, YES.
If I waved a gun in your face, you would be justified in stomping me into the ground. If the Presisent directs military planes to fly over a foreign nation, they are justified in declaring war against us.
Our military plane in foreign air space is an act of war. Whether by verbal declaration or outright invasion of another country, the President is not to start a war without the official support of Congress, in the form of a Declaration of War.
Got any reply to #285 & #289?
Regards,
Boot Hill
Saddam Hussein even asked permission of the United States ambassador to Iraq, and waited for her to give that permission BEFORE attacking Kuwait.*************************
To: exodus
Presuming, for the sake of argument, that is a fact -- if "permission" of the US was so desired, why did Saddam refuse to evacuate Kuwait after the US withdrew it?
If you wish to invest in the idea that Saddam was April Glaspie's lapdog, when her higher-ups overruled her and pulled on the reigns, why did he resist?
# 275 by L.N. Smithee
If you know the woman's name, you know that I'm telling the truth. I had forgotten her name.
Saddam was not April Glaspie's lapdog. He told her to let him know if the United States government, in other words, the President, had any objections to his conquest of Kuwait.
Saddam was told that the United States had no interest in Kuwait.
April Glaspie was not "overruled." She checked with the State Department and said what she was told to say. She didn't "decide" anything, she was a MESSENGER.
Saddam was greedy, true. But the United States DID give him permission to attack Kuwait.
It was a trap. Saddam fell for it.
To: exodus*************************
Got any reply to #285 & #289?
Regards,
Boot Hill
# 294 by Boot Hill
Yes, but they'll be long and drawn out.
I have to sleep now, my friend.
I'll come back later
Dear Mr. Smithee,
W is turning our country into the Evil Empire du jour, if you pardon my French. This continues the trend on which Clinton embarked while he was the prez but he is advancing a lot faster than Clinton. As you may remember, there was at least 'some' opposition to Clinton's military escapades in Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia and other minuscule and nearly-defenseless territories even though, in the end, he did receive broad support and approval of his sending flying, remotely-controlled, explosive charges into civilian 'targets' such as TV stations or a foreign leader's private residence. This was not viewed as state terrorism at the time. Subsequently, it came as a great surprise that other terrorists employed nearly-similar methods to terrorize us. Like I said, it was not easy for Clinton to advance on the path toward the Evil Empire status but he did advance. It is a lot easier for W to do so.
It was even more difficult for Clinton and his accomplices to make a mockery of our internal freedoms. While he managed to successfully shoot, gas and burn a large number of Americans early into his presidency, the Congress only reluctantly supported him on that path which forced him to select more discrete methods of controlling the citizenry.
W, on the other hand, has no problems whatsoever to re-define or criminalize any civil right or liberty for as long as the Demos agree that such rights or liberties were no longer needed or were criminal in the first place. He is happily growing our national debt and allowing our trade deficit to grow beyond what Clinton could have dreamed while in office. His spending on items that the Feds have no business spending, such as Education - therefore ensuring that the State can indoctrinate more of our children - could not have been achieved by Clinton or any Democrat. W's about to begin war on Iraq makes no sense whatsoever unless one cares more about Israel's security than one does about the U.S.A.'s - if he had the U.S. as priority #1 then he would have addressed China and North Korea which are real and growing threats, not Iraq. And W would have disarmed Pakistan and India, the 2 newest nuclear powers, while it is still easy to disarm them - note that it is very likely that Pakistan will turn into an enemy of ours at some time in the future and, while we do not know what Iraq has in its arsenal, we know for a fact that Pakistan has nukes which COULD be stolen by or given to terrorists before we could do anything to prevent it.
And, yes, W can do and is doing everything Clinton didn't dare dream because he will be giving the automatic support of his coward Republican politicians base and the enthusiastic support of his loyal Democrats. Of course, he could not do anything the Democrats dislike. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats may be hysterical bitches but they don't seem to be political cowards.
Examples: Clinton couldn't get the authority to place the destruction of our economy on the fast track while W obtained that quite easily. While there were limits in Clinton's ability to ignore our Constitutional rights, W faced practically no resistance for as long as he didn't touch abortion or anything related to homosexuality. Of course, the rights of 'other species' remain sacrosanct on W's watch. Clinton had to go through all kinds of maneuvers to bring more foreigners into the country while W is just about to make the admissions of illegal aliens our official policy - remember: making a mockery of our laws is just another way in which Mexicans coming in this country illegally are expressing their 'family values'. We could continue on this path for a long time. While W publicly challenges the U.N. to act or lose its credibility he is also re-joining the UNESCO, on corrupt organization that Reagan got us out of - atta boy W!!!
Now, perhaps someone could tell me which 'conservative' items did W implement so far. Other than a minuscule tax cut set to expire shortly after it takes effect. I mean, it's true, he didn't have sex with interns in WH and this IS conservative. Is there any other W accomplishment worth noting lately? And, please, don't make bombing Afghanistan a 'conservative' achievement. It has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism - it's a natural reaction.
You obviously cannot define American--one thing it is NOT is giving up our rights like cowards and invading countries without provacation because you think the sky is falling.
Well, at least the quality of your thought has gone up from the post I answered. You are now at the level FR has become with its goon squads.
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.