imported post
unreconstructed1 wrote:
Gordie wrote:
unreconstructed1
argue semantics and feel good cheerleading
all you want, fact of the matter is, the war is unconstitutional
Exactly where in the Constitution is it forbidden to come to the aid of an ally when they are invaded by a hostile nation?
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_user.php?id=7312
Amendment 10.
The constitution doesn't expressly delegate to the congress the power to levy war for any purpose but the three that I mentioned previously. the tenth amendment reaffirms that whatever powers aren't SPECIFICALLY delegated are reserved to the States, and to the people respectively.
I get so sick and tired of people who don't seem to have the first clue about the constitution keep asking me where is is forbidden.
simple fact is the only powers that the FED constitutionally have are those that are specifically mentioned. AND NO MORE
Oh, but it is you who needs to read the Constitution, all of it, don't pick and choose the parts you like and ignore the rest as you have accused me of doing.
Article 2,
- Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the
Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Obviously, a standing military is authorized by the Constitution.
unreconstructed1
now while the federal government had the authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, contraol of these forces rested in the hands of the governors of teh several STates until such time as they needed to be called up by the FED, and ONLY for three specific purposes; to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. (Article 1, section 8.15 United States Constitution)
Now read
section 8.16
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I was called up by order of the President, until then I had been under the control of the Governor of the State of Nevada. I don't see where there has been any violation so far. All of the call ups were approved by Congress, just like it was supposed to be.
Talk about picking and choosing, it's the very next line. How could you miss that without it being intentional? I notice that to repel invasions is listed as a reason to deploy our military. If someone threatens an invasion, and has been shown to be a threat in the past, should you wait until they are on American soil to do something about it? Remember, 19 people with box cutters carried out the single most destructive attack by a foriegn force on American soil, since the War of 1812. Just because someone is weaker, doesn't mean that they can't harm you. Just because you don't believe thatsomeone is a threat, doesn't make it so.
unreconstructed1
The National guard was created in order to remove power of the militias from the governors and to replace it with a federal reserve force. The same act also attempted to make those members of the "general militia" yet another reserve federal unit, effectively killing any military force not controlled by the FED.
Wrong, the National Guard is under state control until activated to federal service. Even then, the Feds must abide by certain restrictions set by Congress. I saw this myself when my unit was deployed to the Middle East.The Air Force wanted one of our aircraft to be in another location, butbecause of the limits imposed by Congress regarding how many of our airplanes were authorized to be activated, we had to leave the Middle East early and redeploy to the new location, instead of just sending one of our other planes from home.
There are other cases where the Pentagon was forced to change plans because of the restrictions regarding the National Guard, especially in regards to base closures.
Although the Pentagon must stay within the restrictions placed upon it by Congress, I do agree with you that there is no real significant,military force allowed in today's environment that is not controlled by the Fed in some way. This does worry me somewhat. Looking at Congressional leadership today, the thought of them having any control of our military forces is concerning.
unreconstructed1
now while I respect the American fighting man, I do not respect the war that they are being sent to wage, since it is unconstitutional.
This is a statement made by people who know nothing about the American fighting man. It is nothing more than apolitically correct, yetanti-military, feel good statement. Most of the people engaged in the current wars, believe that they are doing the right thing. If you are against their actions, then you are against them.
I have yet to see any definitive proof that the wars are unconstitutional. Since none of the anti-war crowd in Washington have taken it to court and won, I'm guessing that it must be legal.
unreconstructed1
as I have already posted, the militia ( remember there is no provision in the constitution for a large standing army, as the founder understood that this was the first step to tyranny) is to ONLY be called up for three purposes.
I have already shown where there is a provision for a standing army and navy.
I have also shown where there was reason to go to war.
WW1 and WW2 showed us what happens when you ignore a tyrant attacking his neighbors because he doesn't yet pose a direct threat to you.
I see by your post that you are familiar with Jefferson. Do you care to let us all know who the first US President was to send forces to invade a foreign nation? Did he use the militia, no, he used the standing forces of the time, the US Navy and Marines. Were the foreignersinvading our soil? No, they were threatening our shipping in the Mediterranean Sea.
Are you saying that one of the framers of the Constitution engaged in an unconstitutional war?
unreconstructed1
While Hussein may have been the tyrant that he is played out to be. nothing he or his regime did met the requirements for Congress to call out the militia
He tried to assassinate a former president of our country. If you try to arrange the murder of a US citizen as a head of state, you are committing an act of war. Therefore, any retaliation is justified.
unreconstructed1
secondly, how has Iraq threatened OUR freedoms? surely that regime threatened the freedoms of the Iraqi people, but since when are they citizens of the United States?
They invaded their neighbors, they supported terrorism around the world (some of these attacks killed US citizens), and threatened our economic security. All of these things affect us.
unreconstructed1
I get so sick and tired of people who don't seem to have the first clue about the constitution keep asking me where is is forbidden.
[/quote]
I get sick of people who try to say the Constitution says what it doesn't say.
AWDstylez
Did you miss the whole court case part?
No, the only question is why the other examples weren't taken to court. I agree that if a news agency intentionally lies, they should be held accountable, but don't just single out one agency, hold them all to the same standard.
Maybe hormones in milk is an important issue to you, if so, I apologize for making light of it. It is however,my opinion that some of the other examples are more detrimental to the nation as a whole.
I also see that you have resorted to character, name calling instead of presenting facts or logic.
AWDstylez
You know the funniest part about your position? Even the GOP, Faux News, and @#$%in Limbaugh aren't stupid enough to use "a continuation of the Gulf War" as an excuse for the Iraq conquest. Bush and Cheney themselves didn't even dare use that idioticexcuse. Did you ever wonder why? Justifying... it's fun to watch.
What planet are you from? Maybe because of the fact that during the time between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom you were likelymore concerned with pimple cream than world politics,you missed out on the cease fire agreement that ended hostilities. The violation of which brought about 17 UN resolutions trying to make Saddam behave. The violation of these resolutions was continually referenced by the US and Great Britain in the lead up to Iraqi Freedom. These hearings were covered extensively on Fox News, maybe your news outlets lied aboutor neglected to mention what was going on in those hearings.
Funny thing about your cartoons, the first one looks more like Obama than it does W.
smoking357
What do you care where I'll go? You just want me gone. I don't care to have a discussion about which countries you think are less free than the U.S.
You misunderstand my intentions. I don't "just want you gone", I want you to be happy. If being happy means that you need to leave,I am willing to help you.
I don't care to have a discussion about which countries are less free that the US either, that would be boring and pointless. I want to have a discussion about which countries are
more free than the US. If there is a better place than here, I want to be there. I haven't found it yet, and I doubt that I will.
The fact that you won't answer my questions shows that you are just spouting off and that you have no real intention of leaving. If I wanted to go somewhere, I would know in advance where I wanted to go, what I would do when I got there, and what my goals were when I got settled. Only after I had these things figured out would I set the ball in motion to actually do it
