[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The old fashioned way? You go to Congress and get approval for a declaration? Hopeless nonsense from Paul as usual. In the more than 120 conflicts US has been engaged in throughout history, it has only ‘declared war’ 5 times. US didn’t even declare war on Nazi Germany. Declaring war is a diplomatic formality and the constitution grants the power to wage war exclusively to the executive.[/quote]
Not sure if serious?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Treason however falls squarely under divulging information you are contractually bound to keep hidden and again, as such, is a crime.[/quote]
What contract? You and your libertarian brethren need to get consistent - I’ve been told over and over and over that if you can’t freely assent to a contract, you aren’t bound by it, and being born into a land ruled by a constitution isn’t freely assenting to its provisions.
So, what contract, for treason?
[/quote]
The contract you are breaching obviously. Otherwise it’s not treason, just airing of dirty laundry. E.g. if I decide to reveal state secrets I’m not a criminal because I never agreed to keep them hidden. If General Petraeus does(presuming his security clearance requires him to agree to keep shit hidden) however that’s treason.
SM, I’m not sure where you get that the constitution grants the power to wage war exclusively to the executive. Please enlighten us as to where it says that in Article II Section 2 or anywhere else in the constitution.
Further, just because the US only “declared war” a certain number of times doesn’t make it acceptable. You may consider this diplomatic rhetoric but if that is the case then why not just nuke the middle east and be done there?
There is a reason America is not held as a diplomatic nation around the world and it is because it doesn’t adhere to its own rules. Again, please tell me where you get the idea that the executive is granted exclusive power to wage war by the Constitution for the united States or is this your own “interpretation” of the Constitution mixed with historical pretext?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The old fashioned way? You go to Congress and get approval for a declaration? Hopeless nonsense from Paul as usual. In the more than 120 conflicts US has been engaged in throughout history, it has only ‘declared war’ 5 times. US didn’t even declare war on Nazi Germany. Declaring war is a diplomatic formality and the constitution grants the power to wage war exclusively to the executive.[/quote]
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The old fashioned way? You go to Congress and get approval for a declaration? Hopeless nonsense from Paul as usual. In the more than 120 conflicts US has been engaged in throughout history, it has only ‘declared war’ 5 times. US didn’t even declare war on Nazi Germany. Declaring war is a diplomatic formality and the constitution grants the power to wage war exclusively to the executive.[/quote]
Not sure if serious?[/quote]
Then why not do a little reading and find out for yourself fella. Something written by someone other than a bullshit libertarian would be a good start. Like I said, US didn’t even declare war on Nazi Germany. Congress rejected the declaration by one vote. According to Ron Paul US then had no right to wage war against Nazi Germany.
'The U.S. Constitution empowers the president to wage wars as commander in chief while Congress has the power to declare wars and fund them…Legal experts Noah Feldman and Samuel Issacharoff wrote in March 2007 in Slate that the Constitution intended the president to have the power to wage war effectively. “In the modern era, no country - not even a parliamentary democracy - has been so foolhardy as to place a war under the guidance of a legislative body, rather than a single, unified command.”
"Adds Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia’s Center for National Security Law: “Bringing up troops from the rear is right at the core of the command function (of) presidential power.”
“During the Civil War, the Court issued two significant opinions interpreting the war powers. In the Prize Cases (1863), the Court on a 5 to 4 vote upheld President Lincoln’s order blockading southern ports - even though the order was issued prior to a formal declaration of war on the Rebel states by Congress. The Court found Lincoln’s action authorized by a 1795 Act allowing the President to call out troops to suppress an insurrection.”
[quote]boondoc holiday wrote:
SM, I’m not sure where you get that the constitution grants the power to wage war exclusively to the executive.
[/quote]
Like I said to the other fella. Then why not research it for yourself? Simply googling the words “us constitution,” “war powers,” etc
“The Constitution’s division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief(such as the power to wage war), Congress with certain other exclusive powers(such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort,) and a sort of “twilight zone” of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act.”
No, the constitution makes it acceptable.
Diplomatic courtesy. Nothing to do with “bombing the Middle East” or whatever.
http://www.daveross.com/war.html
“Declare war” and “raise taxes” for that war.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Not sure if serious?[/quote]
Not sure why you don’t know all this.
SexMachine you are living on another planet
Resolutions against Germany and Italy were passed without debate. The only person who did not vote for war was pacifist Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin who had also voted against war with Japan.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The old fashioned way? You go to Congress and get approval for a declaration? Hopeless nonsense from Paul as usual. In the more than 120 conflicts US has been engaged in throughout history, it has only ‘declared war’ 5 times. US didn’t even declare war on Nazi Germany. Declaring war is a diplomatic formality and the constitution grants the power to wage war exclusively to the executive.[/quote]
Not sure if serious?[/quote]
Then why not do a little reading and find out for yourself fella. Something written by someone other than a bullshit libertarian would be a good start. Like I said, US didn’t even declare war on Nazi Germany. Congress rejected the declaration by one vote. According to Ron Paul US then had no right to wage war against Nazi Germany.
'The U.S. Constitution empowers the president to wage wars as commander in chief while Congress has the power to declare wars and fund them…Legal experts Noah Feldman and Samuel Issacharoff wrote in March 2007 in Slate that the Constitution intended the president to have the power to wage war effectively. “In the modern era, no country - not even a parliamentary democracy - has been so foolhardy as to place a war under the guidance of a legislative body, rather than a single, unified command.”
"Adds Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia’s Center for National Security Law: “Bringing up troops from the rear is right at the core of the command function (of) presidential power.”
“During the Civil War, the Court issued two significant opinions interpreting the war powers. In the Prize Cases (1863), the Court on a 5 to 4 vote upheld President Lincoln’s order blockading southern ports - even though the order was issued prior to a formal declaration of war on the Rebel states by Congress. The Court found Lincoln’s action authorized by a 1795 Act allowing the President to call out troops to suppress an insurrection.”[/quote]
Germany declared war on us, you seem to be forgetting that one little fact. You may wish to read the Constitution sometime, you really think the founding fathers gave congress the sole ability to declare war as a joke? The power of one man to send a nation to war is against the very nature of Republics.
“When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.” ~Jonathan Swift
You are really not going to try and use an insurrection as the same thing as a war are you? Seems the guy above you already disproved your little theory that we didn’t declare war.
I don’t understand your hate for Libertarians. Considering we have just been proved right and you neo-cons are just starting to see the Euro is dying and I called it over 2 years ago. How many times must Libertarians be validated?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]boondoc holiday wrote:
SM, I’m not sure where you get that the constitution grants the power to wage war exclusively to the executive.
[/quote]
Like I said to the other fella. Then why not research it for yourself? Simply googling the words “us constitution,” “war powers,” etc
“The Constitution’s division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief(such as the power to wage war), Congress with certain other exclusive powers(such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort,) and a sort of “twilight zone” of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act.”
No, the constitution makes it acceptable.
Diplomatic courtesy. Nothing to do with “bombing the Middle East” or whatever.
http://www.daveross.com/war.html
“Declare war” and “raise taxes” for that war.[/quote]
I applaud your ability to see the constitution in light of history even if it is a biased history (what’s not biased and controlled right?).
The Dave Ross site is a mere example of one writer’s bias in showing congress and the courts shirking their duties to uphold the Constitution with historical citations from federalists like Alexander Hamilton…You clearly seem for a strong central government so that shows your bias. My bias is for very limited scope of govt.
And linking Article I Section 8 is exactly proving my point. The congress declares war, grants letters of marques and reprisal etc. Article II Section 2 states that the executive is the commander in chief, but that DID NOT give him free reign to “make war” as you suggest.
As congress ceded their authority over the years, and with unchecked exec orders, yes, the executive is left with too much power. But we all know that the constitution is just a “god damned piece of paper” after all. “We” aren’t party to it. It has not governed the dejure govt since it was usurped in the later half of the 19th century…We have statutory code and regulation for that now…
By the way, I’m usually a lurker and will not be commenting on this thread further. My only purpose in this thread is to bring awareness and to expose bias.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
Resolutions against Germany and Italy were passed without debate. The only person who did not vote for war was pacifist Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin who had also voted against war with Japan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm[/quote]
Astoundingly you are correct. I was relying on my memory and I was mistaken. What I was talking about was that Congress did not declare war on 8th December when war with Japan was declared. It was not until after Germany declared war on US that a declaration was sought. My mistake.
However the main point of what I was saying still holds. The US has been engaged in over 120 conflicts and has only declared war five times; War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Germany declared war on us, you seem to be forgetting that one little fact.
[/quote]
No, I remember it well. Hitler’s Generals were speechless.
You might too. I provided the link above to the relevant article.
There are a number of reasons why. Getting Congressional approval for a formal declaration is also a show of support - a mandate from the states and people. It is not necessary but it is preferable.
Not so.
Yes, I get it. Ron Paul is a ‘true genius.’ Okay.
No. Relevant though.
Very true, only it wasn’t a ‘theory’ - it was my memory; a confusion of historical facts that I studied years ago. But I hold my hands up. Major mistake. However one that has absolutely NO bearing on my point or the argument.
I don’t hate libertarians and I’m certainly not a neo-con. I come across as hostile sometimes because Ron Paul is so full of shit and it gets repetitive explaining why.
[quote]boondoc holiday wrote:
And linking Article I Section 8 is exactly proving my point. The congress declares war, grants letters of marques and reprisal etc. Article II Section 2 states that the executive is the commander in chief, but that DID NOT give him free reign to “make war” as you suggest.
[/quote]
Wage war. Yes it does. As Hamilton said, waging war requires ‘decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch.’
Professor Adrian Vermeule: 'In times of crisis, the executive’s distinct advantages - such as expertise, decisiveness and secrecy are valuable, whereas the advantages of the legislative branch and the courts, such as deliberation, are less useful. “During emergencies, courts and Congress should defer heavily to the executive and historically have done so.”
The Framers would have understood the distribution of war powers between the executive and legislative branches in the context of the British Constitution, the source of many legal concepts found in the US Constitution. Under the formal British system, the King exercised all war powers, including the power to declare war. A declaration of war was not needed either to begin or to wage a war; instead, it served as a courtesy to the enemy and as a definition of the status of their relations under international law. It notified the enemy that a state of war existed so as to formally invoke the protections of international law. It also played a domestic legal role by informing citizens of an alteration in their legal rights and status: during periods of formal war, citizens of the contending nations could “annoy” the persons or property of the enemy and lawfully keep captured vessels.
British governmental practice in the eighteenth century indicates that Parliament’s control over funding, rather than the role of declaring war, provided a sufficient check over executive warmaking.
http://hir.harvard.edu/soviet-legacies/exercising-wartime-powers?page=0,1
Exercising Wartime Powers by John Yoo, Harvard
[quote]boondoc holiday wrote:
My bias is for very limited scope of govt.
[/quote]
Yet you want to unconstitutionally empower the states which would do the exact opposite.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What are you doing over in enemy territory? Considering a republican this time around?
Wish more of them would’ve had the chance to answer the torture/waterboarding question.
Actually liked the Perry/Gingrich foreign aid view. We’re a fading military/economic power. A foreign aid recipient should periodically make their case for redistributed tax-dollars. We’re going to disengage a great deal over the course of this century, let’s not pretend otherwise.
Gingrich on Egypt and the rest of the middle east was excellent. Religious (and non-religious) minorities are in trouble. Careful cheering on regime-change, as what comes after might be at least just as ugly. ‘Democratic’ tyranny is no better when your churches are being razed to the ground.
Best moment:
- YouTube [/quote]
Isnt it funny how easy it is to cheer for fascism?
And they have not even donned their uniform and shiny boots!
This is all so exciting!
How could “it” happen?
One step at a time of course.
[/quote]
I totally agree , the problem of allowing our leaders to exercise discretion is they are incapable as a whole. And I may have to admit that it may be impossible to satisfy all the criteria for one person to be the judge
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]
He is against free speech just like Stalin was[/quote]
Modern slander and libel laws date back to the 13th century(English defamation law and scandalum magnatum.) Every country on earth has libel/slander/defamation laws.
Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.[/quote]
Well, that is downright fantastic…
Alas…this is what every president swears to uphold:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Where is the Grand Jury?
Where is due process?[/quote]
Ich konnte nicht ganz folgen. Ich sprach uber VERLEUMDUNG. Kapital verbrechen? Nein. Rechtliches verfahren? Ja.[/quote]
Your capitalizations is off, but otherwise that is decent German!
I iz mindboggled…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]boondoc holiday wrote:
…There is a reason America is not held as a diplomatic nation around the world…
[/quote]
Oh good golly, Miss Molly this is some really sweet stuff.[/quote]
lol, I saw that too. I fully expected your gold bars to come out.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]boondoc holiday wrote:
…There is a reason America is not held as a diplomatic nation around the world…
[/quote]
Oh good golly, Miss Molly this is some really sweet stuff.[/quote]
lol, I saw that too. I fully expected your gold bars to come out. [/quote]
I love it Pussharder ju7dging intellect, that needs gold bars
