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

#61    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,390 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 July 2013 - 06:54 AM

Quote

At this point in time, this is not important, but that power is the Constitution.  We haven’t gotten that far yet.
It's the topic of the OP!  I went that far, from the beginning! You're telling me it's not important who has that power?   Of course you are, because you can't find those rules from Congress, who has that power.

Quote

That’s what I’ve been saying.  And what I’ve been saying is that “Nation Building” is a set of rules that Congress uses to govern captures.  That seems to be very straight forward.  You should not be having trouble with that.  I don’t think anybody else is, if they’re watching.
For what must be the 5th time now, SHOW ME the rules, otherwise I've proven your unconstitutionality.

Quote

That’s a very poor example.  The LP was not captured during an armed conflict.  
For the sixth time, show me the rules from Congress during these Constitutional conflicts we're in then.  This is getting shriveled and old quick.

Quote

No, I am not.  I am equating the ‘making rules concerning Captures’ power authorized by the Constitution with Nation Building.

The hell you are not.  Nation building isn't capturing, it isn't war making, it doesn't have shat to do with Article 1 Section 8.

Quote

I think I just did.  Nation Building is a set of rules that fall under ‘making rules concerning captures’.

You "think" you did because you have no rules much less law you can cite to confirm what you believe.   Nation building isn't about capturing anything.  We're building nations we haven't captured.   We're building nations we've never been at war with.   It doesn't have squat to do with war other than something that might occur after armed conflict occurs but that's incidental, not definitional or necessary.   It's illegal though because there are no rules even though you have just submitted the fact that Congress alone has the power to make them.

Quote

It’s not that there’s no link, it just doesn’t have to follow.  99.99% of the time it probably does but Congress could declare war and the President doesn’t have to sent in troops.  The closest we came to that would probably be the Quasi War.
That's not what I'm talking about.  You can't understand that the war powers that our Congress has cannot be shirked and passed off to other authorities that don't have the powers you think they do.  Congress isn't making any of these nation-building rules.   You can't seem to tell the Capitol apart from the Pentagon.

Quote

That is complete nonsense.  Sec 8 is a list of enumerated powers which I guess means it is multiple choice.  You follow the rules that apply to the particular situation.  Congress doesn’t go out and declare war and then establish a post office.  Although, I guess there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
When the situation is war, it is Congress's most solemn duty to declare it.   Congress has the power to declare the war, raise and support the army, and appropriate for no more than two years.

Quote

Where does it say that?
By any honest reading of the Founders intent that we can review?  

Thomas Jefferson: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."  ~ Thomas Jefferson
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.”

Quote

All it says is that Congress can raise and support armies.  There is no requirement that a current war is needed before raising and supporting armies.
Read more carefully what you're replying to.   I said, ANY HONEST READING OF FOUNDER INTENT. When you're this disabled at understanding what the Constitution says that you're denying plain English, I resort to Founder intent to put you in your place.

Quote

  If you are a student of history, then you’d know that conflict is unavoidable and a standing army can prevent wars.  I don’t recall the historian but they had done a study and found that in the past 5000 years, there has been only 6 days totally conflict free.  The Constitution is a document of common sense, something many people lack today.  Given history, it is only common sense to retain a standing army.  In the spirit or the Early Romans and Greeks, our military are not isolated from the people.  They are the people.  That is why the same abuses that the Founding Fathers warned us of wouldn’t happen.

I just quoted the Founders addressing Greece and Rome who did not have standing armies.   Greece and Rome were listed as examples for why standing armies aren't necessary.  Context, RavenObama, context.

Quote

I referenced those quotes long before you included them.  I explained the meaning of those quotes and the legitimate concerns that the Founding Fathers had.  Remember that these men had just gone through a war in which it was a trained standing army that won the war.  It took years, on the run to get to that point.  If there was already a trained professional standing army, the Revolution would have lasted only a couple of years with the loss of fewer men and property.  A militia (as we consider it today) just couldn’t stand up to the British army.  The unpreparedness of no standing army is far more dangerous than the possible abuses domestically.  I showed why that would be unlikely today.

After the Revolutionary War was won, most of the Continental Army was disbanded.   When the last declared and won war America fought, World War II was won, most of the military forces raised for that war was disbanded.   But we've got people like you stating unconstitutional armed conflicts on religions in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, as if Congress even wrote a law in your unconstitutional neocon Crusades.  Congress doesn't have anything to do with your nation-building you think is "land capture rules."   It's unconstitutional any way you cut it.

Quote


This quote is a bit of an enigma.

No, it's not.  It's crystal clear in meaning and the quotes from our Founders against standing armies are many.

Quote


This is why we have a Posse Comitatus.  That is why our military is not mercenary in nature.  But we do hear of this Administration wanting to utilize NorthComm or other agreements with other countries or even a NCSF to be able to use their troops in times of “emergency”.  This is what the Founding Fathers were warning us of.  Not fear of our own military.
We are talking about the power of CONGRESS here.  Can you understand that?   What do you think Letters of Marque and Reprisal are?  This power is mercenary in nature.   Again, all of the rules come from these Administrations.   You are delusional to keep avoiding the fact that all this nation building you keep desperately trying to claim is constitutional has nothing to do with the Congress.  Therefore Article 1 Section 8 doesn't have screw to do with it.

Quote


This short quote is what got me thinking that it is too much out of context.

LOL no, it's not.  The particulars about why our Founders believed what they did are codified in the Constitution.   It's crystal clear and it's impossible to misunderstand.

Quote


A couple of things here.  New Orleans and Mobile were this nation’s frontier in our early years.  The fear of losing this territory was real.
That doesn't change the fact that "The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."   Then you go on to talk about 30,000 troops and defending our country with them.   That doesn't mean we can't raise large armies to defeat our enemies in war.   It means that when the war is over, we disband the large army because it is totally adverse to what this country stands for.  It is adverse to liberty.

"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

#62    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,390 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:00 AM

Quote

That’s the rule you are making up.  It doesn’t say that Congress can only raise, support, and make appropriations in times of war.
Where did I say "only"?

Quote

As with the example of New Orleans, there was no war but Congress raised and supported an army.
?????
http://en.wikipedia...._of_New_Orleans

Quote

In general that could be true.  NB is what occurs in the aftermath which means that there could still be pockets of resistance.
Show me the rules from Congress.   How many times will I have to ask before you give up this fantasy of Constitutionality trying to equate Article 1 Section 8's land captures power to nation building?

Quote

For the umpteenth time, I never claimed that NB has anything to do with taking the nation to war or financing it.  But, NB are rules that Congress can use to govern captured lands.  
Show me the rules from Congress for nation building as authorized by the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8.

Quote

There is nothing wrong with the President initiating NB as long as Congress approves.  If there is a concern then it can be dealt with at that time.  Is it foreign policy or making rules concerning captures?
You're the one that has repeatedly stated that Article 1 Section 8 authorizes nation building.  Now you're retreating from your claim.   It's unconstitutional, that's what's "wrong".   Now you don't understand what Congress "Making Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" means.  

Quote

If there is anybody left reading this forum, I would imagine it would take them a calculator to count the number of times I showed that.  NB falls under – now wait for it – the power to make rules concerning captures.  That’s n+1 times now.
Nation building isn't armed conflict, it isn't capturing land, and it isn't based on rules from the Congress that you've been able to cite yet.   I'm the one telling you that Congress has that power, now show me the rules!

Quote

I’ve been showing it multiple times, let’s try it again (pay close attention to the bolded text): “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”.  That’s now n+2.  Now, if you don’t think NB are rules that govern captures, could you enlighten us as to what kind of rules do?
Yes and that is all referring to the power enumerated to the Congress.   If you want to keep stating that nation building is rules concerning captures on land and water, then show me the rules from Congress.

Quote

You’re right except for one thing.
Alright.

Quote

In this case “captures” is a term that references the spoils of war (after they’ve been captured).  NB has everything to do with making rules concerning captures.  This tells me that you are not a student of (military) history, that you are not a war-gamer, and you have never been in the military.
Source please.   Cite the source that confirms that captures now refers to spoils of war.   Afghanistan isn't a spoil of war.  It's a sovereign state run by a foreign government.   Iraq isn't a spoil of war.  It's a sovereign state run by a foreign government.  We're not annexing these territories, we're not even fighting a war anymore, we're using our soldiers as police officers.   None of this nation building welfare today is "spoils of war", it's the costs of war.  It's subsidizing China's Iraqi oil, because that's where the Iraqi oil is going.  It's bringing our soldiers home alive with brain disorders including suicide, major depression and PTSD.  It's bringing them home dead in body bags.  It's destroying the liberty of every American because they can't spend their own money on the things that they would spend their money on freely if they didn't have to pay welfare to foreign regimes.   You're listing "war-gaming" in the same sentence as serving in the military.  Are you kidding?  You're going to get personal and cite your military record with me to make your unconstitutional tirade more valid?  Let's see it then.   Show me how what Article 1 Section 8 authorizes Congress to do has to do with military history, war-gaming, or our personal records.

Quote

I’m going to ignore your rant for the most part.  It’s clear that you have a wild hair up your butt and you are using my thread to vent even though what you are venting has nothing to do with the op.  Your rant is pretty much non sequitur.  However, there are a couple of concepts that need to be corrected.  Once they are corrected, you are more than welcome to restate your rant.  NB is not a catch-all spending program.  NB is neither welfare nor warfare.  NB *IS* covered under the third part of I.8.11.
You're not ignoring anything.  You're cutting up my statements into banter and responding to it all.   I don't feel the least bit ignored believe me.  You're going to pay attention to me here I'll make sure of it. And no, it's not non-sequitur, it's Article 1 Section 8!!   Show me the rules from Congress on nation building.   I've asked you at least 10 times now, and there's not a rule in sight.


James Madison: "Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. It would be superfluous therefore to enter into a proof of the affirmative.

James Madsion:  "Is the power of raising armies, and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defence."

James Madison:  "But was it necessary to give an indefinite power of raising troops, as well as providing fleets; and of maintaining both in peace, as well as in war?   The answer indeed seems to be so obvious and conclusive as scarcely to justify such a discussion in any place. With what colour of propriety could the force necessary for defense, be limited by those who cannot limit the force of offense? If a Federal Constitution could chain the ambition, or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations: then indeed might it prudently chain the discretion of its own Government, and set bounds to the exertions for its own safety.

And thus, the Father of the Constitution explicitly warns of exactly what you're trying to pull here Ravenhawk, and you don't even know it.   By believing in the military industrial complex, you have ushered in a virtually unlimited military machine to be used for whatever offensive purposes our Presidents wish.  It's the most anti-Constitutional position one can take. It blatantly ignores where the power lies as spelled out in black and white by our highest law.   You keep omitting who has the power in Article 1 Section 8.  It is the Congress.

Edited by Yamato, 15 July 2013 - 07:29 AM.

"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

#63    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,900 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:14 PM

This is going nowhere.  You’re not learning.  You don’t know how to learn.  The densest person by now should realize that they do not understand the op.  Understanding is key to communicating.  Do you agree?  Are you interested in communicating or just being an ****?  This is my op, so it is your job to understand what I’m saying.  I have gone well out of my way to state my position clearly and you haven’t shown any indication that you understand.  And if you don’t understand, then how can you prove me wrong?  You can’t!  This is not up to debate.

So let’s just ignore your reply and start over.  Please tell me in your own words, what you think the definitions of the following terms are.  Try to stay away from examples.  Don’t give me sources.  Don’t wander off onto other parts of the Constitution or anything else.  And I don’t care if you claim you have given the definitions.  I’m going to assume that they are just lost in the thread somewhere.  Just tell me in your own words.  I will tell you if you are right or not and then we can move on from here.  Just focus on these three and nothing else.

1) Captures

2) Rules on Captures (what rules would this include?)

3) Nation Building

Since you wouldn’t try to understand my points, I will try to translate to you.

Edited by RavenHawk, 16 July 2013 - 02:44 PM.

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato

#64    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,390 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 July 2013 - 10:19 PM

You can't understand how you've lost this debate and that's why you're spinning your failure into saying that I don't understand something.  I understand perfectly well that Article 1 Section 8 contains the enumerated powers granted to Congress.

It follows that if nation building is authorized in Article 1 Section 8 by Congress having the power to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" as you've repeatedly claimed, then show me the Rules from Congress or you have lost the debate.  

You can't even say the word 'Congress' when Congress is the subject of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

"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

#65    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,900 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 July 2013 - 02:17 AM

View PostYamato, on 16 July 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

It follows that if nation building is authorized in Article 1 Section 8 by Congress having the power to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" as you've repeatedly claimed, then show me the Rules from Congress or you have lost the debate.  
Answer the questions and when I’m confident I understand your POV, then I will.

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato

#66    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,900 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 July 2013 - 04:44 PM

It shouldn’t be taking this long to respond back with your answers to those three definitions.  Or have you realized your folly and are conceding?  You’re so eager to try to prove someone wrong, yet when given an opportunity to support your position, there’s nothing.  You go into ignore mode as if nothing has happened.  You’re the one asking me to show you where the Constitution supports my stance but you are having trouble understanding when I tell you.  That is fine.  Tell me your definition of these terms and I will use them to explain.  Since you are not trying, I can still try to enlighten you.  An honest reading of the Constitution supports my points and not your naïve viewpoint.  If you believe that, then continue to remain silent.

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato

#67    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,390 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:30 PM

Article 1 authorizes Congress.  Period.   This transcends anyone's made-up definition on what they think captures, rules on captures, and nation building are defined as.   If rules on captures authorizes nation building, and you can't find those rules from Congress, then obviously nothing in Article 1 Section 8 applies to the nation building we're doing.   Therefore the only logical conclusion is that nothing in Article 1 Section 8 makes it constitutional and the whole premise of your position here is proven wrong.

This is the moral hazard that Ron Paul and other constitutionalists warned us about.   If liberals, statists, neocons, and zionists (and I consider you easily three out of those four) can equate nation building with war, there's nothing left that you can't define as war.  You've opened up Pandora's Box in a self-fulfilling prophecy that will guarantee perpetual war without end.   And government makes policy where the money's at because they're soulless immoral shills who don't care how many suffer or die just so long as they're in power and keep convincing themselves their positions make the world a better place.    Just keep pretending the President can use the military in perpetuity and insert it into whatever foreigners' business he wants and then call it constitutional and I'll call that the most unconstitutional example of an alleged American citizen I've ever seen.  Of course you would describe James Madison correcting your Wilsonian worldview as "going nowhere".  

I rest my case and I'm sipping margaritas on the beach already.  This debate is over.

"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

#68    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,900 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 July 2013 - 03:02 PM

If you were so damn sure of your position, you wouldn’t be so afraid to give the definitions and make excuses.  If you are right then you’d share your definitions because you’d be curious to see what I would do.  But you didn’t.  You basically ran away.  You conceded.  If you’re going to go deep into the argument, you need to prepare to go all the way.  Did you see how the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial helped the defense more?  This is what you’ve done here.  And you probably don’t even realize it.

This isn’t the answer to the question I was looking for, but it will do.

View PostYamato, on 18 July 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

Article 1 authorizes Congress.  Period.  
OK, you’ve set this in stone now.

Later on, you say:

Quote

And government makes policy where the money's at because they're soulless immoral shills who don't care how many suffer or die just so long as they're in power and keep convincing themselves their positions make the world a better place.  
We could have done without the commentary and I might even agree with you.  But it’s not important because they *ARE* Congress.  It’s that first part that is important, “government makes policy”.  How more Constitutional is that?  Congress controls the purse strings.  Congress is authorized. Period!  Adding your little commentary on decrying that Congress is unConstitutional is in fact *YOU* making up your own definitions on how Congress should act.  It’s not your place to interpret like that.  Now considering that we performed NB in Germany and Japan after WWII, we have a Constitutional and historical precedence on “making rules concerning captures”.  Does that not register with you?

We’ve also done it in Afghanistan and Iraq.  I don’t think we’ve done nearly as good a job here as we did in WWII.  Because we have not *seen* this through, I think we’ve only assured ourselves of having to go back some time down the road.  India is still the best example of NB.  After a century of colonization, England has never had to go back since 1948.  And I don’t suspect that they will ever need to.  Despite her problems, India is a stable state and the largest Democracy.

You talk about “soulless immoral shills who don't care how many suffer or die”.  How many suffer or die when we don’t get involved?  Why do you insist on thinking that doing nothing somehow saves lives?  Given Man’s propensity for war and cruelty, doing nothing never saves lives.  American Hegemony *DOES* make the world a better place.  That alone is worth the sacrifice, even if we get spit on by other nations.  And in the long run, makes our shores secure.

Quote

This transcends anyone's made-up definition on what they think captures, rules on captures, and nation building are defined as.  
If you don’t understand what these terms are, how can *YOU* decide what transcends what?  All I’m asking if for you to share your definitions so that we may be on the same page.  If you claim that you’ve already stated them, fine.  This just means I haven’t caught on to your way of thinking and I need further instruction.  But for some reason, you don’t want to go there.  Like someone who boasts but has nothing to back it up.

Quote

If rules on captures authorizes nation building, and you can't find those rules from Congress, then obviously nothing in Article 1 Section 8 applies to the nation building we're doing.  
Well then, if Congress is authorizing us to NB in Afghanistan and Iraq then those are the rules from Congress.  Obviously I.8 applies.  NB *IS* rules on captures.

Quote

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that nothing in Article 1 Section 8 makes it constitutional and the whole premise of your position here is proven wrong.
Therefore the only logical conclusion is that NB is a set of rules authorized by the Constitution and supported by Congress that applies to (in this case) captured territory.

Quote

This is the moral hazard that Ron Paul and other constitutionalists warned us about.   If liberals, statists, neocons, and zionists (and I consider you easily three out of those four) can equate nation building with war, there's nothing left that you can't define as war.  You've opened up Pandora's Box in a self-fulfilling prophecy that will guarantee perpetual war without end.  
I never tried to equate NB with war other than it is what happens in the aftermath.  But you’re not much of a history student are you?  Mankind has been involved in perpetual war for 5000+ years (at least).  Pandora’s Box is just an excuse to not deal with the “slings and Arrows of troubles”.  Defending ourselves is a constant vigil.  What’s the Pandora’s Box in today’s world are GMOs and Auto Immune Disease.  This will create the famine that will send nations to war.  I think I’d rather be in a nation prepared for that.

Quote

Just keep pretending the President can use the military in perpetuity and insert it into whatever foreigners' business he wants and then call it constitutional and I'll call that the most unconstitutional example of an alleged American citizen I've ever seen.  Of course you would describe James Madison correcting your Wilsonian worldview as "going nowhere".  
We are not even talking about the War Powers Act, which btw, is Constitutional.  It does give the President the power (and these are rules authorized by Congress as the Constitution grants) to go to war against anyone, anytime, anywhere.  but there are two big caveats.  One is, that the President just doesn’t go to war for just any reason (at least he shouldn’t) and two, if Congress does not pick up support for the war, he has 90 days to get the troops home.  It gives the President the power to react to issues but ultimately, it is Congress that decides the final disposition as granted in I.8.

Quote

I rest my case and I'm sipping margaritas on the beach already.  This debate is over.
You never had a case.  But you are right, we are done here unless you want me to continue to rub your nose in it.  I have no problem doing that.  I can say “a sphincter says what?” to you all day long.

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users