Another United Nations War?

Ron Paul ^ | February 28, 2003 | Ron Paul, M.D., and a Republican member of Congress from Texas

[cookcounty]

If Paul is as ignorant about Iraq as he is about Vietnam, that would explain a lot.

[Blood of Tyrants]

No, but it does set presidence.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I am not going to try to educate. Do it yourself if you want the know the truth. I am not going to argue with someone who refuses to find the facts out for themselves.

[Mmmike]

I don't know. Do you always act like legal faits accomplis are self-justifying? Jurisprudentially, what's good for the power to declare war should be good for the "right" to an abortion, shouldn't it?

[elfman2 on another computer]

"Do you always act like legal faits accomplis are self-justifying?"

When someone explicitly shouts that something "is illegal!" when it has been repeatedly judged legal? Yes. And I also refer to why it should be legal, but you didn’t notice that. Do you always jump both feet into the middle of an argument without reading back through the thread, even one step?

[Mmmike]

IOW, how are the two decisions not analogous? Ron Paul and Exodus have a good point about the shakiness of the current jurisprudence. There is an amendment process to settle this matter through established channels. It looks to me like (a) they've simply declared the Constitution passe (the Bolsheviks would have invoked "the historical imperative of the Hegelian Dialectic" or some such) and (b)it doesn't seem to bother you.

[Movemout]

I admire Ron Paul for his willingness to think things through in his own effective way. I believe he is off the mark here, however.

If you accept his premises then it is all very logical, as usual. But he ignores the prevailing motivation for all of this activity, i.e. Saddam Hussein means to be the power broker in the Middle Eastern part of the world through force. He has shown no compunction about punishing his own countrymen who oppose him. He disregards the murderous acts of his sons who emulate him. It is even likely that he will unleash biological and chemical agents on his own turf, to the detriment of his own people. Ron seems to ignore all of these factors in this article.

[exodus]

exodus - "Show me the section of our Constitution that gives the President the power go to war on a whelm, and I'll stop bringing questions of law to the subject of war.
elfman2 - Here are a couple of posts by people more knowledgeable than myself in "declaration of war" and "authorization of force" issues:

**********************

I believe that those people don't know any more than I do about law.

A lawful requirement is supposed to be met. That's why it's labeled as a requirement.

Thanks for looking that up, but your links do not answer my request.

[elfman2 on another computer]

"IOW, how are the two decisions not analogous? Ron Paul and Exodus have a good point about the shakiness of the current jurisprudence. "

I don’t consider Paul’s arguments persuasive in the least. He ignores evidence that works against him, repeats defeated platitudes and is playing to a cult like fringe following. I posted links to 2 discussions and a web site regarding why congressional authorization is constitutionally consistent. I gave my own reasons, and noone has challenged them. I could go on and debate it in a rational way, but when someone simply shots that it’s illegal and demands to see where the constitution authorizes "congressional authorization" (as if the Constitution is that explicit and tedious), I don’t have patience to walk through a reasoned debate with them.

But if you ignore all that, Row v. Wade and any repeated pattern of court decisions are analogous.

[exodus]

Judge Rejects Lawsuit to Block War Against Iraq

by Ralph Ranalli
Calling the potential war with Iraq a political rather than a legal issue, a federal judge in Boston refused yesterday to issue a temporary restraining order that would have prevented the Bush administration from attacking without a declaration of war from Congress.

A group of unnamed military personnel, along with relatives of people in the armed forces and six members of the US House of Representatives, had filed suit, claiming that Congress had abdicated its war powers to the executive branch when it passed a resolution backing military action in Iraq last October.

US District Judge Joseph L. Tauro agreed with Justice Department lawyers who argued that the judiciary has no power to intervene in matters of foreign policy except in cases where Congress and the president are strongly and clearly in conflict. The judge denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order and ordered their lawsuit dismissed. '

'The issues raised in this case are political questions beyond the authority of this court to resolve,'' Tauro said at a hearing.

Tauro said he could not tackle the issue of the constitutionality of the October resolution because Congress had ''clearly . . . not acted to bind the president from engaging in a war on Iraq'' and was, therefore, not in direct conflict with the executive branch. John Bonifaz, a Boston lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, called Tauro's decision ''wrong'' and vowed an immediate appeal. Bonifaz said Congress created a dangerous situation by investing all the power to wage war with one man, President Bush. Plaintiff Charles Richardson of Jamaica Plain, whose son, Joseph, is a US Marine assigned to the American forces massing in the Persian Gulf, said he was disappointed by Tauro's decision.

''It would have taken a strong judge to rule on the merits of this case,'' said the elder Richardson. Justice Department lawyers read a statement from Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. ''As the court held, Congress and the president are speaking with one voice in deciding that force may be necessary to compel Iraq to end its . . . weapons programs, to end its support of international terrorism, and to comply with the UN's resolutions,'' the statement read.

**********************

Thanks for the news story, jwalsh07, but that is not a ruling.

Refusing to take a case is not the same as ruling on a Constitutional issue.

If this is your only example, the law has not been changed, and the requirements of the Constitution still must be met.

[exodus]

I really do appreciate your effort, elfman2, but I've already studied this issue. Links to someone else's opinion are nice, but your claim that their opinion should be taken in place of my own I do not accept.

[elfman2 on another computer]

"I believe that those people don't know any more than I do about law…. Thanks for looking that up, but your links do not answer my request."

I presume you’re not referring to the court summaries in which suits against presidential use of force with only congressional authorization were dismissed.

[elfman2 on another computer]

"Refusing to take a case is not the same as ruling on a Constitutional issue."

I think you’re mistaken. Refusal to take a case is a court ruling that the case has no merit, and that the constitutional challenge is groundless.

[exodus]

exodus - Past violations of law do not excuse present violators.
Blood of Tyrants - No, but it does set precedence.

**********************

Which is why I have a big problem with precedence being used as a yardstick.

It seems that judges can pick and chose which case is worthy of being looked upon as a precedence. That's wrong. Each case should be ruled upon individually.

[exodus]

I think you’re mistaken. Refusal to take a case is a court ruling that the case has no merit, and that the constitutional challenge is groundless.

**********************

A judge, one man, decided that Congress and the President didn't violate the law when the President went to war on his own. That judge has no business deciding that this case didn't merit consideration. Deciding whether a case has merit is the job of a Grand Jury, not of any judge.

I am also one man, and I say that our law has been violated.

[exodus]

exodus - I believe that those people don't know any more than I do about law. A lawful requirement is supposed to be met. That's why it's labeled as a requirement. Thanks for looking that up, but your links do not answer my request.
elfman2 - I presume you’re not referring to the court summaries in which suits against presidential use of force with only congressional authorization were dismissed.

**********************

You said that this case had been ruled on, that Bush has a judicial ruling in his favor, that the court decided that Bush has the authority to go to war on only his own decision.

You are giving me generic opinions, not specific opinions. I don't believe the courts have ruled on this case, and so far your claim that they did has not been substantiated..

[elfman2 on another computer]

"A judge, one man, decided that Congress and the President didn't violate the law when the President went to war on his own. That judge has no business deciding that this case didn't merit consideration. Deciding whether a case has merit is the job of a Grand Jury, not of any judge. I am also one man, and I say that our law has been violated. "

Repeatedly these kind of challenges have been dismissed. If they were serious challenges, pressure would have come to bare to accept these cases. That’s how the Constitution has established the courts. I don’t think it establishes Grand Juries as arbitrators on constitutionality as you claim. Yes, you are one man, but I can’t take you seriously any longer. Best regards…

[exodus]

Mmmike - "IOW, how are the two decisions not analogous? Ron Paul and exodus have a good point about the shakiness of the current jurisprudence. "
elfman2 - "...but when someone simply shouts that it’s illegal and demands to see where the constitution authorizes "congressional authorization" (as if the Constitution is that explicit and tedious), I don’t have patience to walk through a reasoned debate with them."

**********************

You think that the Constitution isn't explicit? My reading of the document resulted in a different opinion. The Constitution if very explicit on every issue. What would be the point of basing an entire system of law on one document, if that document only loosely related to the exercise of law?

Try one "reasoned" argument on me. Give me one example of governmental power that is not explicitly assigned by the Constitution.

[185JHP]

Thanks.

[exodus]

Repeatedly these kind of challenges have been dismissed. If they were serious challenges, pressure would have come to bare to accept these cases. That’s how the Constitution has established the courts.

**********************

Not true, elfman2.

Here's a glaring example to disputes your statement; the National government daily infringes our right to own and carry weapons. There has not been one case taken to decide the Constitutionality of our national gun laws.

No judge will not accept any serious challenge to our national government. Judges are politicians. Judges are members of our government, just like any other government worker. Their interests lie with the people who sign their paychecks, not with us. Unless jurors stop taking their direction from judges, our slide into totalitarianism will continue.