Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

I.8.11 & 12


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#31    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,708 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 03 July 2013 - 03:49 PM

Included with declaring war is the granting letters of Marque and Reprisal.  In essence, Piracy or State-Sponsored Terrorism.  Interesting to note that the clause right before this one is basically the protection provided by the British Navigation Laws while under their rule.  So in back to back clauses, we outlaw piracy but then reserve the right to engage in it.

A Letter of Marque allows an individual the right to wage war against a nations enemies. He then becomes a privateer, not a pirate. A pirate will attack any ship he thinks he can beat. If a privateer attacks a ship registered to a nation his country is not at war with then he will be tried as a pirate. May seem like a fine line, but it is definately a line. Just ask Captain William Kidd (ok, that would be hard to due since he is dead, hung for piracy while having a Letter of Marque).

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#32    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,093 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 July 2013 - 07:21 PM

View PostBama13, on 03 July 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

A Letter of Marque allows an individual the right to wage war against a nations enemies. He then becomes a privateer, not a pirate. A pirate will attack any ship he thinks he can beat. If a privateer attacks a ship registered to a nation his country is not at war with then he will be tried as a pirate. May seem like a fine line, but it is definately a line. Just ask Captain William Kidd (ok, that would be hard to due since he is dead, hung for piracy while having a Letter of Marque).
I agree completely.  Iím just not assigning any value to it good or bad, therefore that line is all but nonexistent.  I see Piracy and Terrorism as just tools that carry no value.  Itís the ideology behind it.  Therefore, if the other side does it, itís bad.  If we do it, itís to further our cause.  Thatís what gets me when we hear about how China is cyber attacking us and we hear very little of our cyber attacks of China.  I want to hear about those attacks.  China knows whoís doing it, just as we know whoís attacking us.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#33    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,925 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 July 2013 - 07:30 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 03 July 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

We all consider FDR's request for war as the only and proper way to declare war.
Excuse me???   What in the world are you drinkingt?   Congress declares war.   If you don't even know that, you need to spend a lot more time questioning and a lot less time answering.   You lost my willingness to pay attention to anything else you said after this if you're going to butcher the rule of law this badly and expect to be taken seriously.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#34    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,093 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 July 2013 - 08:13 PM

View PostYamato, on 03 July 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

Excuse me???   What in the world are you drinkingt?   Congress declares war.   If you don't even know that, you need to spend a lot more time questioning and a lot less time answering.   You lost my willingness to pay attention to anything else you said after this if you're going to butcher the rule of law this badly and expect to be taken seriously.
Oh Gawd, what a Maroon!  If you canít comprehend 16 little words you need to just quit now.  Your mouth has no more room for any more feet.  Do you understand what the word ďrequestĒ means?  Apparently not.

Here is FDRís request for warÖ.



This is supposedly textbook.  Congress didnít take long to respond, 82 to 0 in the Senate and 388 to 1 in the House.  Whatís of interest is that Germany didnít attack us, but our focus turned to them first while the Pacific remained a staying action.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#35    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,925 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 July 2013 - 08:45 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 03 July 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

Oh Gawd, what a Maroon!  If you can't comprehend 16 little words you need to just quit now.  Your mouth has no more room for any more feet.  Do you understand what the word "request" means?  Apparently not.

Here is FDR's request for war….



This is supposedly textbook.  Congress didn't take long to respond, 82 to 0 in the Senate and 388 to 1 in the House.  What's of interest is that Germany didn't attack us, but our focus turned to them first while the Pacific remained a staying action.
FDR's request for war doesn't have a damn thing to do with Congress declaring war.   Your ridiculous assertion that "We all consider FDR's request for war as the only and proper way to declare war." is among the dumbest statements I've heard on this website all year.   Discussing facts with you is pointless.   You know you're wrong, and you don't care.  You're here to crap on the Constitution with your daily statist drivel and I'm here to poke a stick in your eye for it.  Teaching you facts and correcting your mistakes without you kicking and screaming about it will not happen, ever.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#36    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,925 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 July 2013 - 08:52 PM

Here's the folly of your unconstitutional imaginings, prophesied.



Posting videos of the most liberal President in US history doing something that has nothing to do with Article 1 of the US Constitution reveals your true essence as a Wilsonian liberal world builder.  People with minds like yours propping up this terrorist racket up need to be stopped before we lose every bit of liberty we have left.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#37    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,093 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 July 2013 - 05:21 AM

Iíd suggest you read all three replies firstÖ

View PostYamato, on 03 July 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

FDR's request for war doesn't have a damn thing to do with Congress declaring war.  
Sigh!  Well, I guess thatís a yes and or no, huh.  Just depends on your point of view.  Would Congress have declared war without FDRís speech?  More than likely yes.  But there is protocol to follow. Whether you understand that or not.

Quote

Your ridiculous assertion that "We all consider FDR's request for war as the only and proper way to declare war." is among the dumbest statements I've heard on this website all year.  
Just because you donít know history, please donít attack people on things you donít know anything about.  Did you ever wonder why Presidents do the things they do?  Part of the answer is tradition.  Either a President does something for the first time or they do it in a remarkable way that becomes the standard by which all future Presidents do that thing.  When FDR asked Congress to declare war, he sort of broke the mold on the protocol of how to do it.  Youíve noticed that it hasnít been done like that since.  Thereís this stigma of how to properly declare war.  But the bottom line is, will Congress fund it or not?  Most historians will probably agree that this was the best ďrequesting a declaration of warĒ speech ever.  It was inspiring and all inclusive.

Quote

Discussing facts with you is pointless.   You know you're wrong, and you don't care.  
Well, all you have to do is prove it.  You never have.  You just sit there and scream, making a scene that Iím wrong.  You always pick the most insignificant parts of a post to go off on but never the facts.  Those are beyond your reach.  If you did discuss the facts with me, then it would be very productive but thatís not what you do.  Most of your argument is personal attacks and ignorance which is fine by me.

Quote

You're here to crap on the Constitution with your daily statist drivel and I'm here to poke a stick in your eye for it.  Teaching you facts and correcting your mistakes without you kicking and screaming about it will not happen, ever.
Youíre a bore.  All you can do is attack someone out of ignorance.  The only crap here is the mess you sit in.  Seriously?  You canít use a stick to poke your way out of a paper bag.  Iím still waiting for you to teach me the error of my ways.  You just end up embarrassing yourself.  Now, if you have something of value, please share.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#38    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,093 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 July 2013 - 05:25 AM

View PostYamato, on 03 July 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

Here's the folly of your unconstitutional imaginings, prophesied.
Only in your head.  When it comes to domestic issues, I respect what Ron Paul says, but, when it comes to foreign policy, he doesnít know what he is talking about.  From the clip, he believes that if we didnít get involved with military intervention that we wouldnít have to worry about terrorism.  He couldnít be any more wrong.  History proves that and Iíve shown that on numerous occasions.

Why do you think I keep on talking about our early history between 1783 and 1815?  That is a very key time.  When we got our independence, no one showed us any respect.  Other nations tried screwing with us right off the bat.  And even after showing that we could stand up for ourselves, we continue to be a target.  That is why the words of Ambassador Adja to Jefferson mean something.  Even Rome had its Barbarians at the Gate.  If you do not understand that then please ask questions.  This is really a pretty simple concept and our history tempered by the Constitution is what has developed into our foreign policy.

Quote

Posting videos of the most liberal President in US history doing something that has nothing to do with Article 1 of the US Constitution reveals your true essence as a Wilsonian liberal world builder.  People with minds like yours propping up this terrorist racket up need to be stopped before we lose every bit of liberty we have left.
First thing is that Obama is the most liberal President in our history.  FDR was the perhaps the first obviously liberal.  Please comprehend ďobviouslyĒ.  I donít think that Teddy or Wilson are so ďobviouslyĒ.  But this is not a point to argue here.

And two, you seemed to not know that FDR did indeed ask Congress to declare war.  I merely provided the proof.  The clip is an example of article I.8.11 in action.

Next, you continue to show your ignorance by calling me *Wilsonian*.  If you ever bother trying to comprehend anything stated here, youíd know that is the farthest from my beliefs.  Oh, I admit that it is a nice sounding pipe dream but that is all it will ever be.

Wilson believed that all the nations could ban together to govern themselves in peace, hence League of Nations and then later, the United Nations.  Ever since the pleas of Haile Selassie fell on deaf ears, these two bodies have not been worth the price of the paper their charters were written on.

Now I do believe that we need to intervene into foreign affairs as often as we can.  And unlike what Ron Paul believes, American Hegemony *has* provided the world relative peace in the last 70 years.  Considering the destructiveness of modern world wars, that sacrifice has been worth it.  And when we are behind a destructive action, the sooner we can rebuild what we destroy, makes less probability to have to go back again.  That is preferable to just bombing the opposition back to the Stone Age and planting seeds of revenge.  The whole idea of going in is to provide better opportunity to lessen the chance that we end up being targets and catch us off guard.  If the opposition fails to learn and fails to seize the opportunity to better the living conditions for their people and live in peace, then we should go back until there is no more opposition.  I personally donít care if we do spread Democracy and Capitalism.  It is not required, Just that the opposition behaves.  But it would behoove the opposition to do so.  That concept is the ultimate in Providing the Common Defense.  Itís being proactive instead of reactive.  Being proactive is always preferable to reacting.  When you react, the opponent is the one that has the initiative.  When you donít have the initiative then you arenít the one calling the shots.  Thatís a very bad position to be in.  I realize that you probably arenít going to understand that strategy.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#39    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,093 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 July 2013 - 05:29 AM

This post belongs here from the other forum.  Thatís why I created this thread.

View PostYamato, on 04 July 2013 - 12:42 AM, said:

You understand something?   Then show me where "No Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" appears in US foreign policy.  I don't think you know much of anything relating to US law.  The one providing the black and white words in the US Constitution is me here.  Now you're the one that's got to provide some examples of the US government following it.
Wow, you are dense.  I believe I just showed where that was.  That was the op of this thread.  The second half of I.8.12.  That *IS* part of our foreign policy.  The Congress passes an Appropriations bill every two years (although, I think they just do it on a yearly basis).  There, provided and done!  NextÖ

Thatís a good joke, you claiming to be a Constitutional expert.  This is why I said, people laugh at you.  I donít claim to be a Constitutional expert, but this part I do know.  If I know it, then how come you donít?

Quote

I shouldn't even have to say that treaties made between foreign countries don't supercede the US Constitution but I have to say that to you, as if you actually think that treaties signed by foreigners binds the US to foreign welfare.   They have nothing to do with US law at all.  They're not even our treaty.   You're the worst form of Statist.  Some statists are all about welfare.  Some are all about warfare.  You're unfortunately all about both.
Never said treaties supersede the US Constitution, they become inclusive to it.  They become law of the land (VI.2).  Itís not welfare, it is investing in stabilizing an external entity.  Itís not doling out money with no ROI.  Itís expecting a reasonable ROI in defense.

When you consider that others that donít agree with you fall under the label of statist then you show off your ignorance and lack of comprehension.  I would think that the dimmest fool would begin to understand after this amount of time.  But you still continue to surprise me with continued stupidity.  Thatís fine with me.  You make a good foil for my thoughts.

Quote

There is no authority for the federal government to even provide the specific cases of domestic welfare that it does.  The reason there's a general welfare clause is precisely why the federal government has the power that it does.   It's the very reason, among others also cited, that the US government and the US Constitution exists in the first place!  The Founders were explaining why they were creating this new government and they gave a beautiful reckoning for doing so.  
Itís not really a General Welfare Clause, itís just clause 1.  Itís also a charge in the preamble.  But you are basically right in that General Welfare isnít about domestic welfare.  It was more about seeing to it that roads and infrastructure were maintained for use by everyone.  Passing out dole is definitely a liberal idea.  But what does this have to do with anything with Clauses 11 & 12?  Nothing at all is the answer.

Quote

Article 1 Section 8 limiting the power of lawmakers is a black-and-white impossible-to-misunderstand example of what providing for that general welfare means.   It's not an excuse for another bigoted liberal from a red or blue state to dream up imaginary powers the government doesn't have.
As far as *limitations* go for defense, only 12, 16, & 17 have any real restrictions.  The Founding Fathers were wise in not tying the hands of the nation to fight her wars.  It is black-and-white and why you do not understand that is pretty amazing to me.  Plus, we are talking about Common Defense, not General Welfare.  Or have you already forgotten??  If you didnít worry so much about spewing out insults, maybe youíd be able to stay focused on the OP.

Quote

1.8.14 does not nullify 1.8.11 or 1.8.12.  The US Constitution isn't multiple choice.  You obey the authority to declare war and then you obey the rules; you don't pick the one you like best and then ignore the other one.   Your baseless claims that we can "go both ways" are further proof of your Wilsonian liberal political beliefs and beyond any other poster around, they're just laughable.  There is no authority that authorizes nation building.   These notorious cases of nation building in the Middle East that we can discuss here aren't even bound by treaty.  And even if they were, treaties DO NOT supercede nor supplant nor violate the rules right in front of your nose in plain black and white.
Who said that 14 nullifies 11 or 12?  14 is just another clause that adds to the definition of foreign policy.  No one is *picking* the best ones.  I havenít made any ďgoes both waysĒ claim.  I donít even know what *two ways* youíre thinking??  There is just the one way.  You are on some weird drugs.

The authority for nation building is in the second part of clause 11.  What do you think ďand make Rules concerning Captures on Land and WaterĒ mean anyway?  Why does nation building in the Middle East need to be bound by treaty??  Eventually, I suppose it will be.  For now we are acting on national interest.

To help you out with your response to these last three posts.  Your primary focus should be on the question I just asked, i.e. what does the second half of 11 mean to you?  You do that and we might have a beginning to understanding.  Answer that first, then amaze us with your brilliance with the rest of your reply.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#40    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,925 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 July 2013 - 08:35 AM

View PostBama13, on 03 July 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

Included with declaring war is the granting letters of Marque and Reprisal.  In essence, Piracy or State-Sponsored Terrorism.  
Why link terrorism solely to piracy and not to military?   State-sponsored terrorism doesn't need a letter of marque much less piracy.


View PostRavenHawk, on 03 July 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

"Traditions" and "FDR's request" have nothing to do with the process of Congress declaring war.  Presidents don't declare war, PERIOD.  This is the kind of basic fact about a Constitutional US government that you can't seem to wrap your neocon brain around.  A President must be ready to wage it, yet another requirement for the US to wage war after declaring it.  That's what that speech was all about.  The President uses the Bully Pulpit to Congress and the people all the time.  This has nothing to do with Congress's solemn duty of declaring the beginning of hostilities.  It might move them to vote for the declaration if there was any doubt but giving FDR credit for the US entering WWII would be another one of the most asinine things I've ever heard from a poster on this board.

You RavenHawk suggest that one part of Article 1 nullifies another part when you can't even understand the authority to declare war isn't multiple choice.  Article 1 is not multiple choice, Lib.   If you don't declare war and you go to war anyway, you're unconstitutional.  You can't handle Article 1 in its entirety nor can you seem to understand that you obey all of it, not just the parts you like.  

Quote

The authority for nation building is in the second part of clause 11.  What do you think “and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” mean anyway?
That's not "the second part of clause 11", it's the third.  Making rules concerning captures on land and water don't nullify declaring war.  I'm not arguing a single rule about captures on land and water which don't have a damn thing to do with nation building.   We are authorized to capture land, we're not authorized to provide foreign welfare building it for non-Americans.   WTF?   You're an endless vat of welfare for everyone on earth on the US taxpayer dime.  The most extraordinary Liberal I've ever had the displeasure of meeting.   You're a liberal fantasist to botch the wording of the rule of law this badly replacing "captures" with "nation building".   They're not even similar.   You have to change the language of the rule of law to understand it in the way you do. You're an endless drain for the sole purpose of unconstitutional neocon war mongering.   All your "clash of civilizations" and "wars on religion" nonsense you've spewed over the years.  You're a big-government administration's best friend.

The General Welfare Clause explains the reason all of these limitations exist, it's not an excuse for another big-government liberal to invent whatever power out of thin air you want.   I never claimed to be a Constitutional Expert, but it's funny that you say that.

As for Ron Paul and how wrong he is, it looks like you're advocating the invention of Hitler.  Let's have people like Dwight Eisenhower who know what they're doing wage American wars.  Because all your liberal flunkies ever since haven't won diddly squat.


"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#41    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,925 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 July 2013 - 09:11 AM

Quote

But what does this have to do with anything with Clauses 11 & 12?  Nothing at all is the answer.
Everything, when you actually believe that foreign welfare in its most flagrant manifestation - nation building - is somehow relevant to Article 1 Section 8.

Quote

As far as *limitations* go for defense, only 12, 16, & 17 have any real restrictions.  The Founding Fathers were wise in not tying the hands of the nation to fight her wars.  It is black-and-white and why you do not understand that is pretty amazing to me.  Plus, we are talking about Common Defense, not General Welfare.

Well you shouldn't have brought up General Welfare as the pretense of your opinion then.  Defense requires that we're either being attacked or face imminent threat of being attacked, otherwise it's not defense.  That's another one of your classic inabilities through the years, understanding the difference between offense and defense.  To you, there is no difference.  The dictionary and the rule of law, and the intent and wisdom of the Founding Fathers prove otherwise.

Quote

Never said treaties supersede the US Constitution, they become inclusive to it.  They become law of the land (VI.2).  It’s not welfare, it is investing in stabilizing an external entity.  It’s not doling out money with no ROI.  It’s expecting a reasonable ROI in defense.
"Become inclusive to it?"   The authority to make treaties is included in it already.  The treaties do not become "inclusive to it".   You cannot cite any treaty that's regarded as inclusive to the Constitution, where do you come up with this nonsense??? And what treaties are you even talking about here when you're defending your endless warfare/welfare state?   There's nothing in the Constitution that talks about ROI.  That's just total nonsense masquerading as having something to do with the Constitution.  Your statism that's using the lives of our bravest volunteer citizens to get your "return on investment" is just ghoulish beyond the pale.  At least leftist liberals have values and respect human life and civil liberties.  You can't even get that far.

Quote

Wow, you are dense.  I believe I just showed where that was.  That was the op of this thread.  The second half of I.8.12.  That *IS* part of our foreign policy.  The Congress passes an Appropriations bill every two years (although, I think they just do it on a yearly basis).  There, provided and done!  Next…
Wow, I am dense?   So now you're claiming that standing armies are Constitutional?   Well then, this is a matter of interpretation and I don't know what source you have other than your own neocon opinion for arriving at your interpretation.

Where does my interpretation come from?  

James Madison: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.”
President James Madison: “…to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;… to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe."
Thomas Jefferson: “Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion].”
Thomas Jefferson: “The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.”
Thomas Jefferson: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”
Thomas Jefferson: “Bonaparte… transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies.”

Now that we understand the intent of the Constitution's creators and why it was written the way it was, if your position is that somehow the Founders and I are interpreting the Constitution wrong, then I'll readily assign your position as that, because I don't know where else in the Constitution you're getting your liberal interpretations of the Constitution from.   If you concede that my interpretation is accurate but that it's no longer adequate, then obey the rule of law and Amend the Constitution, don't just wish away the parts you don't like and pretend they're not there or interpret the law so badly that you have to resort to baseless opinion void of citation.

Nobody uses more words to create this much self-confusion on the Constitution as you do.  Return on investment as a basis for Constitutionality?   As the way in which you interpret the wording in the rule of law?   Are you tossed?  You need some serious help and I'm going to be the one that provides it for you.   Since you can't understand what the spirit of our rule of law is, I'm going to carry the water for you and serve you what the Founding Fathers said until you get it.   Machiavelli is no Thomas Jefferson.   The indefinite undeclared commercial war you espouse on a regular basis is the most anti-Constitutional ideology a person can subscribe to.

Edited by Yamato, 06 July 2013 - 09:46 AM.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#42    Capt Amerika

Capt Amerika

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Joined:31 May 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Frozen Tundra of the USA

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:28 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 02 July 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

"Constitutionitis"  A form of political constipation related to Bible Thumping where individuals cherry pick text to use for their partisan purposes without reference to the authority that was given power in the same Constitution to interpret it.  As more and more of a population engages in this, government tends to grind to a halt.

Seems odd that a group of people would write down a plan (the constitution) and then have the need for another agency to explain to them what they just wrote down.
Isnt the act of writing something down a way to prevent misinterpretation?
The problem we have today is that politicians treat the constitution like a religious document.  They twist the wording to squeeze the meaning that suits them at that point in time.
Our founding fathers were not morons.  They wrote what they meant and they meant what they wrote. and thats both sides of the aisle btw....  Not just the "bible thumpers" as you so eloquently put it which btw does strike at your credibility when you attack a group of people like that.  It shows you have an agenda right off the bat and arent giving true unbiased feelings towards a topic.


#43    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,925 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:53 PM

No love for the Founders' intent here?   It's disgraceful to see this prevalent belief that somehow OUR states, out of all the other states in the world, can't defend themselves.   That we're standing here at all in the country that we live in is the firmest proof that they can because they did.   Washington DC is somehow the only place capable of defending us?   We have to stay centralized perpetually to keep us "safe"?   Central planning is for authoritarian/totalitarian regimes, not for Constitutional Republics.    The Founders knew this, I can understand this, where are you?   The states pay their bills.  The states have the power to defend themselves too and I think that fact needs to be thrust into our collective consciousness to break our indoctrination of centralization down.   We're supposed to collect and organize our full power in response to attack or imminent threat, and therefore Congress has the power to raise and support armies and declare war as prescribed by the Constitution.   If we actually followed the Constitution in this country, the massive debt from DC's military industrial complex wouldn't be passed on to future generations, exactly like the Founders told us it shouldn't.   The best way to bring the government to heel is to defend the rule of law that makes it heel.  And we're completely out to lunch here.  What's up?

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#44    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,093 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:33 PM

View PostYamato, on 06 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Why link terrorism solely to piracy and not to military?   State-sponsored terrorism doesn't need a letter of marque much less piracy.
Bama didnít say that, I did and I was only making an observation.  I wasnít *only* linking it.

Quote

"Traditions" and "FDR's request" have nothing to do with the process of Congress declaring war.  Presidents don't declare war, PERIOD.  
Youíre wrong.  It has every thing to do with it.  Do you understand the definition of *request*?  As Commander in Chief, the request should come from him.  Technically, the vote does come from Congress.  Without the Presidentís request, Congress could have still vote for war but as Commander in Chief, he doesnít have to send in the troops.  There is nothing that binds the President to sent troops.  Itís a combined effort.  And there are many ways to do it.  The ultimate way is that Congress funds it.

Quote

This is the kind of basic fact about a Constitutional US government that you can't seem to wrap your neocon brain around.  A President must be ready to wage it, yet another requirement for the US to wage war after declaring it.  That's what that speech was all about.  The President uses the Bully Pulpit to Congress and the people all the time.  This has nothing to do with Congress's solemn duty of declaring the beginning of hostilities.  It might move them to vote for the declaration if there was any doubt but giving FDR credit for the US entering WWII would be another one of the most asinine things I've ever heard from a poster on this board.
Again you are wrong.  Your, insults are getting childish.  The President doesnít have to be ready to wage it.  And by the same token, the nation canít always wait for Congress to declare war before we react, especially if the other side wages war on us.  The enemy isnít going to wait for Congress.  We currently have a barbarian at the gate, just waiting to pounce.  But, as far as WWII goes, it was our military forces that were attacked and as FDR was the Commander in Chief, it was up to him to request a declaration of war from Congress.  I donít know how simpler I can make it for you.  Of course there was no doubt about going to war and FDRís request assured that.  This has nothing to do with giving FDR credit.

Quote

You RavenHawk suggest that one part of Article 1 nullifies another part when you can't even understand the authority to declare war isn't multiple choice.  
Nope, you are wrong.  Where do I say that one part nullifies another?  Show me.  I dare you.  I double dare you.  I even triple dare you!  Show me that and I will show where you are dead wrong.

Quote

Article 1 is not multiple choice, Lib.   If you don't declare war and you go to war anyway, you're unconstitutional.  You can't handle Article 1 in its entirety nor can you seem to understand that you obey all of it, not just the parts you like.  
And you are wrong again.  Where do I say the Constitution is multiple choice?  I donít.  Is this all you can do, insult if you canít get your way?

Quote

That's not "the second part of clause 11", it's the third.  
If you had read the OP, you would have seen where I divided the two clauses into two parts for discussion sake.  Please pay attention, then you wonít be sticking your foot in your mouth all the time.

Quote

Making rules concerning captures on land and water don't nullify declaring war.  
I never said it did.  I donít know where you are finding all these words you claim I said.  Please try and stop putting words in my mouth.  If you donít understand something then please ask.

Quote

I'm not arguing a single rule about captures on land and water which don't have a damn thing to do with nation building.  
Well, I am and it does.  That is the impetus of the op.  You need to go back and reread the op (or my reply to my op).  Again you are wrong, but are we beginning to get somewhere?

Quote

We are authorized to capture land, we're not authorized to provide foreign welfare building it for non-Americans.  
Itís any kind of captures.  It could be military assets or civilian, or territory.  Iíll take this as your answer to my question, at least in part.  So, once weíve captured lands, what do we do with them?  How are their use governed?

Quote

The most extraordinary Liberal I've ever had the displeasure of meeting.   You're a liberal fantasist to botch the wording of the rule of law this badly replacing "captures" with "nation building".   They're not even similar.   You have to change the language of the rule of law to understand it in the way you do. You're an endless drain for the sole purpose of unconstitutional neocon war mongering.   All your "clash of civilizations" and "wars on religion" nonsense you've spewed over the years.  You're a big-government administration's best friend.
And you are an ignorant moron.  The only reason I put up with your insults is because of the satisfaction I get rubbing your nose in it.  Nation building is a set of ďRules concerningĒ captures.  And Congress can make any rules it wants concerning said captures.

Quote

The General Welfare Clause explains the reason all of these limitations exist, it's not an excuse for another big-government liberal to invent whatever power out of thin air you want.
Again you are wrong and your insults are boorish.  I would not consider I.8.1 as a General Welfare Clause.  The only restriction in that clause concerns ďDuties, Imposts and ExcisesĒ in that they are uniform, nothing concerning 11 or 12.

Quote

I never claimed to be a Constitutional Expert, but it's funny that you say that.
But yet that is what you are claiming.  You have no clue, yet you readily state what Iíve said is unConstitutional and you have the foggiest of what Iím talking about.  The bottom line is that nation building is not unConstitutional and if you answer the questions Iíve put to you honestly, that will prove that it is not.

Quote

As for Ron Paul and how wrong he is, it looks like you're advocating the invention of Hitler.  Let's have people like Dwight Eisenhower who know what they're doing wage American wars.  Because all your liberal flunkies ever since haven't won diddly squat.
Taking something out of context as long as it still conveys the original meaning is fine.  The following is the original quote.  Compare the one you use to this one and see if you can figure out why you are wrong:

ďAll of us have heard this term "preventive war" since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war ó what is a preventive war?  I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.  A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.  I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.  It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.  There are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today's conditions that I thought it is no use to go any further.Ē

Hitler is not the first to use preventative war.  He did not invent it and that quote does not state he did.  What Eisenhower was referring to was the Allies attacking Hitler during the Phony War.  If we had preemptively attacked, then WWII would have never occurred and millions of people would still be alive.  He then segues into today (1954) and the use of nuclear weapons (i.e. not conventional warfare), that using them would make the term ďpreventative warĒ laughable.  It is not preventative war but it is war.  I know you arenít going to learn from this.  So itís just going to be interesting to see how you push back and twist this or outright deny it, perhaps even ignore it.  This is why people laugh at you.  But this alone is enough to shoot down your clip.  If you fell for it, then you are definitely a low information voter.

Now letís look at the most grossly misused quote of Eisenhower (in context):


ďNow this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence ó economic, political, even spiritual ó is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.  In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.Ē

He basically acknowledges that this new military establishment is an integral part of our society.  There is an imperative need for this development.  Heís not pushing for the abolishment of the military-industrial complex, heís merely warning of the unforeseen abuses that could occur because it is something new to our experience.  A good example of this is the original Patriot Act.  It allowed for wiretapping phone calls to/from known terrorists.  That was a key limitation.  But now, under Obama, it has bloomed into Project Prism which is a violation of our basic human and Constitutional Rights.  This is precisely what Eisenhower warned us of.  It is an abuse of that power.  On the other hand, nation building is not part of this warning.  Nation building is right down our alley.  Or it should be.  It is part of our peaceful methods and goals.

I donít know who produced that clip but it is a confused and naive combination of statements.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#45    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,093 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:39 PM

View PostYamato, on 06 July 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

Everything, when you actually believe that foreign welfare in its most flagrant manifestation - nation building - is somehow relevant to Article 1 Section 8.
Well, itís not welfare; itís an investment in defense with the expectation of high ROI.  You see, trade with a friendly stable partner is more preferable and profitable than having to bomb a population into near non existence.

Quote

Well you shouldn't have brought up General Welfare as the pretense of your opinion then.  
I didnít.  You did.

Quote

Defense requires that we're either being attacked or face imminent threat of being attacked, otherwise it's not defense.
That is correct and if you are any student of history, youíd know that any nation faces imminent threat at any time.  One as to be constantly vigilant.

Quote

That's another one of your classic inabilities through the years, understanding the difference between offense and defense.  To you, there is no difference.  
Not my inability to explain but yours to understand.  Iíve been very clear.   In the Zen of warfare, there isnít any difference.  There is no difference in a strategic way.  Only in a tactical means and then the differences can get blurred.  You use military force to achieve your goal whether it is offense or defense.  When you are attacked, itís not that you are defending from enemy attack; you are intent on defeating the enemy.  If you donít defeat the enemy, he will be able to attack you again.  And if you leave the enemy intact, that will be the case.

Quote

"Become inclusive to it?"   The authority to make treaties is included in it already.  
Oh, thank you for agreeing.

Quote

The treaties do not become "inclusive to it".  
Now you canít make up your mind.  Thatís not what the Constitution says.  Did you read my reference?  Probably not.  You only cherry pick what you want to hear.  

Quote

You cannot cite any treaty that's regarded as inclusive to the Constitution, where do you come up with this nonsense???    
Read VI.2 and tell me what it says?  Like you should have done before when I first made reference to it.  Calling the Constitution nonsense doesnít win you points.

Quote

And what treaties are you even talking about here when you're defending your endless warfare/welfare state?  
I thought we were talking in general about any and all??  All are binding and only Congress can terminate them.  And until then, they are Constitutional.

Quote

There's nothing in the Constitution that talks about ROI.  
Actually it does.  If we talk about ROI, then that goes toward the General Welfare.  A reward for investing in the right path.  Donít you realize that terms like ďGeneral WelfareĒ, ďCommon DefenseĒ, ďCapturesĒ, etc. are very generic.  The Constitution forces us to apply the appropriate definitions.  I.e. through experience, the Founding Fathers discovered that a militia was not an adequate defense.  When you take on the world, you need a standing army for defense.

Quote

That's just total nonsense masquerading as having something to do with the Constitution.  
Sigh!  Fine!!  Then how do you define those terms - *IN YOUR OWN WORDS*?

Quote

Your statism that's using the lives of our bravest volunteer citizens to get your "return on investment" is just ghoulish beyond the pale.  At least leftist liberals have values and respect human life and civil liberties.  You can't even get that far.
When you are losing an argument you start off calling someone a statist, when you are clueless, you start declaring that they donít value human life.  Then when youíve lost, you associate those as lower than what you despise.  Donít you understand that your petty insults just showcase your ignorance?

If you want to talk about the value of life, I put it to you that you do not value American lives because you are willing to allow 100s if not 1000s of innocents to die waiting for the enemy to strike first.  Do you not care about lives enough to do all you can to save them?

Quote

Wow, I am dense?   So now you're claiming that standing armies are Constitutional?   Well then, this is a matter of interpretation and I don't know what source you have other than your own neocon opinion for arriving at your interpretation.
Absolutely!  (to both)  My source is the Constitution, Founding Fathers, history, and common sense.  But please tell me where it says that standing armies are not Constitutional?

Quote

Where does my interpretation come from?

<quotes snipped for brevity>
Those are the quotes I referenced earlier but I guess you didnít understand what I was saying about them.  How can you argue something that you just donít understand?  The Founding Fathers were warning us of the abuses that could happen; they werenít warning us about not having them at all.  Those abuses are less likely to occur with our professional army today, for the reasons I gave.  I suggest you go back and read it.

Do you not understand that the abuses of a standing army can also be done by a militia called up?  And not being a professional army would not have the experience to know a legal order from an illegal one.  A militia does not have the training that a professional army has and it is training and leadership more than technology or numbers that win fights.  Laws donít win wars and spirit without training is useless.  This reminds me of that John Wayne movie, ďThe Fighting SeabeesĒ.  You had tough-as-nails construction workers that had the spirit to snap Tojo in two, but without training, they got slaughtered.  That is what happens without training.  Untrained civilians are only good for so long.

Iím not going to waste my time with your endless insults.  That is only an indication of an unarticulated person.  Now, Iíll bandy back and forth with you but if you would just focus on the op and drop the personal attacks, these replies would be short and concise.  You donít win anything by throwing the amount of crap in the air that you do.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users