Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

When was America Great?


Thanato

Recommended Posts

No where in our treaty does it give authority to the UN to send Americans to war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an illegal undeclared war, and there is no other way about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

It was an illegal undeclared war, and there is no other way about it

Ok, show me why.

And don't come with some yaddah, show me why the Prezz cannot uphold a treaty agreed by 2/3 of both chambers of Congress. (That is required by the constitutional treaty clause) and therefore is US Federal law.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What treaty q?? The UN is not NATO. And even if it was you would still need an act of aggression by Libyia. But it isn't, so that isn't even relevant 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, preacherman76 said:

What treaty q?? The UN is not NATO. And even if it was you would still need an act of aggression by Libyia. But it isn't, so that isn't even relevant 

The UN is worse than NATO. NATO applies only to member countries. The UN to anything the Security Council decides. And UN war missions are in the agreement (Though officially they are called "Peace missions"). Chapter VI, VII and VIII of the UN charter (ratified by Congress in 1945) specifies that.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And around we go.

Again, no treaty has authority to circumvent the constitution.

All civil magistrates are bound by oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is any authority given for these United States to be subject to and bound by any earthly piece of paper that abrogates or is alien to the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land":

(1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution - but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).

http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they know this. That's why they call them "peace keeping missions" As if a simple name change gets them around what is clearly a war. Libya was clearly a war. Again, undeclared, and illegal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

And around we go.

Again, no treaty has authority to circumvent the constitution.

All civil magistrates are bound by oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is any authority given for these United States to be subject to and bound by any earthly piece of paper that abrogates or is alien to the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land":

(1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution - but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).

http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html

Yes, and that means that the US cannot fulfill its treaty obligations aiding a treaty partner in a war (or "peace keeping mission")?

Here we go again cherry picking. Once the treaty is ratified by 3/4 of the members of the House and 3/4 of the members of the Chamber of representatives it is Federal Law. And if the Federal Law seez that the US must aid a partner then it must (or buy itself out as is also possible under the UN treaty...  but like anybody would have spent any money to not pound that whisp lighting dervish... ****, even the Germans were aiding despite their reticence ) .

6 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

And they know this. That's why they call them "peace keeping missions" As if a simple name change gets them around what is clearly a war. Libya was clearly a war. Again, undeclared, and illegal.

Yes it was, but it was not a US war as you like to call it. It was a civil war in which the UN took the side of the rebels and was aiding them (and once Qaddafi was gone lost interest real quick).

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article VI, paragraph 2 commands that if and when all of the above requirements for a treaty are met --- that is, a) it does not contradict the Constitution; B) it is negotiated by the President who has sworn to not violate, and who in fact is not violating the Constitution; and c) it is ratified by two thirds of the State-defending-Senators who have sworn to not violate, and who do not by their vote violate the Constitution --- then, and only then, may the treaty in question go into full force and effect for the Union and for all of the individual States in the Union. This latter consequence is the reason for Article VI, paragraph 2 to conclude:

"...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the [not "this"] Constitution [ of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]"

So, the Judges in each State must obey a bona fide treaty, even if the treaty is contrary to that state's Constitution or contrary to any law of that state.

Thus, a properly/legally concluded U.S. treaty overrules any STATE law and any STATE Constitution, but a properly/legally framed U.S. treaty does not, may not, can not, and is forbidden to overrule the U.S. Constitution or abrogate the Sovereignty of the United States. If it does, it is not bona fide. It is a usurpation. It is not "under the Authority of the United States" to make such a treaty.

 

Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."

So clearly, like you said, Libya wasn't a US war, then the constitution, the highest law in the land forbids it. Illegal, and undeclared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Article VI, paragraph 2 commands that if and when all of the above requirements for a treaty are met --- that is, a) it does not contradict the Constitution; B) it is negotiated by the President who has sworn to not violate, and who in fact is not violating the Constitution; and c) it is ratified by two thirds of the State-defending-Senators who have sworn to not violate, and who do not by their vote violate the Constitution --- then, and only then, may the treaty in question go into full force and effect for the Union and for all of the individual States in the Union. This latter consequence is the reason for Article VI, paragraph 2 to conclude:

"...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the [not "this"] Constitution [ of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]"

So, the Judges in each State must obey a bona fide treaty, even if the treaty is contrary to that state's Constitution or contrary to any law of that state.

Thus, a properly/legally concluded U.S. treaty overrules any STATE law and any STATE Constitution, but a properly/legally framed U.S. treaty does not, may not, can not, and is forbidden to overrule the U.S. Constitution or abrogate the Sovereignty of the United States. If it does, it is not bona fide. It is a usurpation. It is not "under the Authority of the United States" to make such a treaty.

 

Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."

So clearly, like you said, Libya wasn't a US war, then the constitution, the highest law in the land forbids it. Illegal, and undeclared.

Which one of those treaties altered the Constitution, If I may be so bold as to inquire?

And, no it did only so in your cherry picking.

Congress is the only institution with the right right to declare war. According to your logic, if somebody attacks the US of A the Prezz must wait until Congress declares war to defend the nation. Well, wrong. And the same applies to all mutual defense and peace keeping treaties.

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Which one o0f those treaties altered the Constitution, If I may be so bold as to inquire?

 

Any treaty that says Americans can be brought to war without a direct declaration from congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, preacherman76 said:

Any treaty that says Americans can be brought to war without a direct declaration from congress.

Again wrong. The Constitution does not say that Americans cannot go to war (including soldiers), it seez America cannot declare war without approval of Congress. It says nothing about upkeeping international law, protecting citizens or partners with a mutual aid agreement.

If the President could not order the aid of a partner, of Americans abroad or of the international institutions it is member of he does not have to be the Commander in Chief. Then that could be Congress.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SMH my goodness Q. When an American engages an enemy that is the US going to war. No foreign body has the power to declare war for us. No commander and chief has the authority to declare war. That power is strictly given to congress.

 

Since this site has been so helpful explaining the situation, I'll post this part as well, cause it seems to define this very conversation.

 

In spite of all of the obvious above, some people doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end. Some even boast of having made an end run around the Constitution.

At its conception and inception, America was founded as a Constitutional Republic under the Rule of Law. In a Republic, law prevails until changed as per a stipulated process, even if a majority of, or 150 percent of the Congress, or 200 percent of the people vote otherwise. (Don't giggle: LBJ was "elected" to Congress with 110 percent of all of the issued ballots in his Texas district "cast" for him!)

But, the U.S. has been traitorously transformed into a socialist (tyrannic) democracy by and of lawless men. Thus, the stipulations and safeguards of the Constitution have been repeatedly circumvented, eroded, and nullified by majority rule.

The resultant tyranny and humiliation under which we now suffer will only continue and intensify until enough citizens read the Constitution, become cognizant that it is being continually violated, realize that freedom from despotism is a personal do-it-yourself project ("George" hasn't and isn't going to do it), and determine to get personally involved to return American to its Constitutional boundaries.

http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh sorry the CAC can actually declare war, under one circumstance. That's if Americans are being directly attacked. And even that power has a time limit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AmbiguousInsight said:

... Communism NEVER works. My opinion on the main topic, at least part of it, is that when the war was televised, it  "opened" the eyes of the masses. Suddenly no one supporter our troops or wars, another all pride we took in being Americans vanished. Then the smelly hippies who protested the war became educators in many universities throughout the country and essentially brainwash kids. I don't know. I am gorilla. :P

The Vietnam War was won and won easily by the US in a military sense.  But, in relation to what you bring up, the vocal minority/squeaky wheel made enough noise that certain key politicians got nervous about their long-term careers, so decided to go with the hippies, traitors, cowards and anti-US ingrates.  Because of that, after defeating the North, we pulled out and when they inevitably reneged on the treaty, when didn't go back in to finish the job.

It's disgraceful, but it's not necessary American Not Being Great.  It was the beginning of a moral weakness that lasted until the early 80s, when it got turned around by Reagan.  Then wasted and left to wither after Clinton had been in office for a few years.  We're still suffering from that today.

Edited by Thorvir Hrothgaard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

Well, that's very simple to get round. They can be sold whatever war you want by the various wholly-owned propaganda arms of Government (i.e. the TV channels and newspapers). 

It's the War Party. Remember when the New York Times and the Washington Post banged the war drums in unison with FNC and various liberal alphabet "warriors"? It almost seems orchestrated in service to the military industrial complex. I don't recall any valid questions, about the wisdom of war, from *any* mainstream member of the Fifth Estate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

And they know this. That's why they call them "peace keeping missions" As if a simple name change gets them around what is clearly a war. Libya was clearly a war. Again, undeclared, and illegal.

It's Orwellian. What enrages me is the disregard for life when etiquette is seen as more important than the death and destruction caused by war. More emphasis is placed on politeness than peace. After hundreds of children die, people are more bothered by boorish manners.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

The Vietnam War was won and won easily by the US in a military sense.  But, in relation to what you bring up, the vocal minority/squeaky wheel made enough noise that certain key politicians got nervous about their long-term careers, so decided to go with the hippies, traitors, cowards and anti-US ingrates.  Because of that, after defeating the North, we pulled out and when they inevitably reneged on the treaty, when didn't go back in to finish the job.

It's disgraceful, but it's not necessary American Not Being Great.  It was the beginning of a moral weakness that lasted until the early 80s, when it got turned around by Reagan.  Then wasted and left to wither after Clinton had been in office for a few years.  We're still suffering from that today.

as usual thorvir get it right. and MY have you all been busy.

and more than usual, members here dont know any history past the 60's. i mean history is NOT a hard subject contrary what most people think. 

here is a list of some of what people dont know that applies to today: (off the top of my head before i run out the door to buy stuff for my classroom)

  • Rome was more successful as a republic before marius' military reforms allowing the poor landless masses to serve in the military, causing men to serve their generals rather than the idea that was ROME. people became greedy and stopped believeing they were part of a "special" civilization.
  • Rome never fell. it has never fallen. though the west succumbed to germanic invasions. though constantinople fell in 1453 in the eastern empire....it lived on through the maritime empire of venice, the knights of st. john and the enlightenment in europe.
  • mohammed was initially peaceful until he was rejected and nearly killed. then he was very very very violent. his successors set their sights on the west as soon as he was dead, and swarmed all over the holy land that was predominately CHRISTIAN and under the control of the eastern roman empire.
  • the arabs ,laid seige to constantinople in the late 700's. they have vowed to unite the world under one religion for 1400 years now.
  • the crusades were requested by the emperor of the eastern roman empire because the arab hordes stole it from them slowly over 300 years. the crusaders were supposed to take back the holy land for constantinople, not set up principalities. any reference to "crusader" by any modern politician is completely B.S.
  • the ottoman empire (turkey) took constantinople and threatened europe. they laid seige to VIENNA in 1683.......America was already a very busy place then. the polish calvary saved us from speaking turkish.
  • the russians have a long and deep hatred of the turks. to this day. they have fought many wars with them.
  • the middle east geopolitical environment was created by the british by crushing the ottomans, who kept it under control.
  • the allies defeated the turks (WHO WERE ALLIED WITH THE GERMANS IN WWI ) AND THAT WHAT LED TO BRITAIN CARVING UP THE ME. the turks lost their empire though it had been crumbling for 3 centuries.

to sum up: islam is pretty much responsible for the problems in the ME. it was wholly civilized before then. civilized in relation to the times.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Free Constantinople"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

"Free Constantinople"

Buy two Istanbulls, get one Constantinople Free!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

It's disgraceful, but it's not necessary American Not Being Great.  It was the beginning of a moral weakness that lasted until the early 80s, when it got turned around by Reagan.

How was it turned around by Reagan? What did Reagan's Administration do that set America on a positive course?

I'd like to hear your opinions on this since you personally feel strongly about Reagan's positive influence on the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.