Obama's War in Libya
Charles Bell
direction of the U.N. and the French.
Comments?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama warned Libya's
Muammar Gaddafi Friday to comply with U.N. demands for a cease-fire or
face consequences that included military action.
Obama, laying out the rationale for deeper U.S. involvement in Libya's
turmoil, said the United States would work with its partners to
enforce U.N. demands on Libya but promised that no U.S. ground troops
would be involved and that the United States would not use force
beyond well-defined goals. (Vietnam, phase I, in defense of the
French)
BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) The Pentagon said it fired 110 cruise missiles
at 20 targets.
Obama said military action was not his first choice. "The people of
Libya must be protected."
The U.S. intended to limit its involvement to helping protect French
by taking out Libyan air defenses, but depending on the response could
launch additional attacks in support of allied forces.
Paul Robinson
[Bell] Obama commences an altruist war in Libya at the behest and
under the direction of the U.N. and the French. Comments?
Quagmire III, here we come!
[Bell] WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama warned
Libya's Muammar Gaddafi Friday to comply with U.N. demands for a cease-
fire or face consequences that included military action.
[Bell] Obama, laying out the rationale for deeper U.S. involvement in
Libya's turmoil, said the United States would work with its partners
to enforce U.N. demands on Libya but promised that no U.S. ground
troops would be involved and that the United States would not use
force beyond well-defined goals. (Vietnam, phase I, in defense of the
French)
Interesting you remembered that, Charles. A lot of people either
don't know or have forgotten the French were in Vietnam first, long
before we showed up. Sort of like people seem to have forgotten the
Russians were in Afghanistan before we showed up. But they were the
bad guys: they invaded the country without declaring war; they took
over parts of it; they started bombing to control territory. We're
the good guys, we... On second thought, forget about Afghanistan, it
isn't important. :) ("Ignore that man behind the curtain!" - The
Wizard of Oz.)
[Bell] BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) The Pentagon said it fired 110 cruise
missiles at 20 targets.
Gee, I didn't know Brazil had its own Pentagon, too! :)
[Bell] Obama said military action was not his first choice. "The
people of Libya must be protected."
[Bell] The U.S. intended to limit its involvement to helping protect
French by taking out Libyan air defenses, but depending on the
response could launch additional attacks in support of allied forces.
Ahh, practice for the hoped-for invasion of Iran. I guess we had to
get it from somewhere!
Charles Bell
> Ahh, practice for the hoped-for invasion of Iran. I guess we had to
> get it from somewhere!
No, it is not that. It is a Clinton-esque phony European war for the
benefit of Europeans and the benefit of re-election of a President
knowing full-well that conservatives will not speak out against it
because conservatives do not do that in spite of the foolhardiness of
the war. Obama will win this phony war, declare a defeat in
Afghanistan a victory and retreat from there by the summer of 2012.
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 20, 1:37 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
to get it from somewhere!
[Bell] No, it is not that.
Actually I don't think we really are going to invade Iran. You were
reasonable to take my comment at face value, but it was more of a
snarky (or sardonic) remark than an actual opinion of what I think is
going on.
[Bell] It is a Clinton-esque phony European war for the benefit of
Europeans and the benefit of re-election of a President knowing full-
well that conservatives will not speak out against it because
conservatives do not do that in spite of the foolhardiness of the war.
Obama will win this phony war, declare a defeat in Afghanistan a
victory and retreat from there by the summer of 2012.
Do you really think it's going to be that soon, Charles? Despite your
obvious dislike of this President you're putting too much faith in
him. Oh wait, in your case that's the wrong word! I think you're
overestimating the speed it's possible for the U.S. to complete an
exit strategy. I'll even give you my own opinion that you're really
not going to like: The U.S. will still be in Afghanistan after Obama
is re-elected. You heard it here first.
Unless the Republicans run a really strong candidate I do not believe
they can win the White House in 2012. I'll give you another
prediction: If Sarah Palin actually does run - and with the
(basically obscene!) amounts of money [1] she's making as a pundit I
don't think she will - I can guarantee if she is the Republican
nominee she *will* lose to Obama.
But the fact about Afghanistan remains, it don't matter, everyone
who's invaded over something like 5,000 years has gotten the same
thing: A bloody nose and chased out. They remind me of the Swiss. As
the saying goes, Switzerland doesn't have an army, Switzerland *is* an
army!
To quote Bill Maher, we should have a "new rule" on Afghanistan.
"Don't invade Afghanistan, or two things will happen. 1. You will
suffer lots of casualties. 2. You will eventually lose and have to
leave with your tail between your legs. Like playing tic-tac-toe
against an expert, you can never win, no matter how long you play, you
will eventually lose or stalemate every time and once you get sick of
the pointlessness of the game you'll quit."
You know, that reminds me. I wrote a tic-tac-toe game in PHP as an
exercise. It's 440 lines, and it doesn't matter who goes first,
unless you're playing perfect you will lose and you can only, at best,
tie.
http://ihnstae.info/ttt.php
[1] I just mean I wish I could be well past my 16th minute of Andy
Warhol's prediction like Sarah Palin is, (yeah, I know, Warhol said 15
minutes, that's my point!) and do that well. For a nonentity like her
to make the kind of money she reportedly has says something about the
quality of political candidates or political pundits in this country.
All I can say about her is, if she can pull down $10 million a year as
I've heard, more power to her.
Charles Bell
> Obama will win this phony war, declare a defeat in Afghanistan a
> victory and retreat from there by the summer of 2012.
>
> Do you really think it's going to be that soon, Charles? Despite your
> obvious dislike of this President you're putting too much faith in
> him.
I think he is an evil man. He has a willing agent in the press --
except, what did you call it? Faux News? Have you heard NBC's Sunday
coverage so far? It is as though it is expected from a man who so
roundly criticized Bush's War in Iraq giving the very same reasons as
to why we should depose Gaddafi and not a single argument has been or
can be made that Gaddafi presents a threat to the U.S. or any of its
African or Middle Eastern neighbors. He de-fanged himself as a
*direct* consequence of Iraq War. And . . . hocus-pocus, Voila!
Europe is the major importer of oil from Libya and the French oil
giant Total controls an important Libyan oil field. Get the picture?
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 20, 3:38 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
> > Obama will win this phony war, declare a defeat in Afghanistan a
> > victory and retreat from there by the summer of 2012.
>
> > Do you really think it's going to be that soon, Charles? Despite your
> > obvious dislike of this President you're putting too much faith in
> > him.
>
> I think he is an evil man. He has a willing agent in the press --
> except, what did you call it? Faux News?
Fox News routinely reports falsehoods then does nothing. I'll pick
two examples from two different sides. I think this came from CNN
because I don't remember watching either item.
Some blogger, I think it was, reported Obama's trip overseas was
costing $200,000,000 a day. This got laundered through various right-
wing outlets until Fox ran with it without fact-checking. Discovering
it was completely fabricated, Fox dropped it. That's all they did.
Rachel Maddow on MSNBC reported something on her show. Someone
discovered it was wrong. On the next episode of her show, she
announced that she had been wrong on her previous show, rebroadcast
the clip showing what she had said, and stated that she was completely
wrong when she said it, that they had discovered she was incorrect.
This represents a prominent display of a reasonable attempt to show
that when errors occur you will make an effort to correct them.
I'm sure I can find more. When you show a falsehood then fail to
prominently indicate it was wrong, it looks more like you're less
interested in being Fair and Balanced (tm) and more on smearing the
target of your stories.
[Bell] Have you heard NBC's Sunday coverage so far?
I had The Weather Channel on all day. Interesting show about how
Sacramento is - eventually - going to be the next New Orleans. The
city depends on levees - some over 100 years old - that aren't really
built to withstand the kinds of weather that can and does strike there
(plus earthquakes). Cost to replace them: astronomical, with no money
to do so. Cost when they fail: astronomical +, but we'll end up
paying it when they do fail. May not be for 50 years. Might be
tomorrow. It will happen, but we don't know when.
I live in Maryland but I think infrastructure failure is a more
important story to me than who is the latest military target upon whom
the current administration is wasting blood and treasure. I can't do
much about whom Obama choses to bomb, I'm not ever going to go to
Libya, so it's not important to me, but at least I know not to accept
any potential offers of employment or contracting that require I visit
the Sacramento Valley!
[Bell] It is as though it is expected from a man who so roundly
criticized Bush's War in Iraq giving the very same reasons as to why
we should depose Gaddafi and not a single argument has been or can be
made that Gaddafi presents a threat to the U.S. or any of its African
or Middle Eastern neighbors. He de-fanged himself as a *direct*
consequence of Iraq War. And . . . hocus-pocus, Voila! Europe is the
major importer of oil from Libya and the French oil giant Total
controls an important Libyan oil field. Get the picture?
There is nothing that teaches a man humility than to go from
Presidential candidate to being the occupant of the Oval Office. Go
check some of Reagan's speeches when he was running for office, then
how he acted once he got elected. That's when "the rubber meets the
road" and you discover that you may be President, but the bureacracy
realizes they'll still be there in four or eight years when you're
gone, and it's really hard to get a whole lot done.
I think it was Harry Truman who said about Eisenhower after he was
elected: "Ike won't realize the White House isn't the army. He'll say
'do this' and 'do that' and nothing will happen."
Non-causal
Obama did the right thing in waiting for the UN security council to
agree (as well as getting the node from the Arab league). Even
abstaining votes were essentially nods of agreement since everyone
roughly knows by now (from Iraq) what enforcing a no-fly zone involves
in modern warfare. (i..e. anyone standing near ground targets that can
pose a threat to aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone are essentially
willingly committing suicide)
I think the trick now is resisting the urge to behave like conquering
overlords that can do whatever they want.
a. Just stick to the limits of the current mandate (i.e. no fly-zone
like Iraq after 1991 invasion) and do not get involved in another
regime change ground war. Keeping deaths to a minimum is important.
The cure cannot be worse than the disease. (not to mention patrolling
the skies (even for years) is way cheaper than nation building)
b. Continue to get feedback from the arab league, allies and the UN.
Don't make any big unilateral decisions.
c. Put the moral burden for reaching a deal between rebels and Kadafi
squarely on the shoulders of the UN and Arab league.
Leaving it into the hands of others to decide (especially Libyans) is
what is in everyone's interests. At bear minimum the American
taxpayer is going to save a wack of money by not involving itself in
another nation building excercise. A near sure way to screw up the
situation is by giving Kadafi the opportunity to frame the situation
as "infidel westerners interfere in another Islamic country" (which I
guarantee you he's going to try) Trying to quickly install some west
friendly front man will only lead to sympathy for Kadafi and more
terrorism (both in Libyan and foreign soil).
Jihadists will also try to exploit the current situation by trying to
reframe it as western interference... which is precisely why
continuing to get everyone's John Hancock is so important. It puts
some of the moral load on everyone's shoulders... otherwise walk away
and leave it to the UN to beg for support if some bloodbath happens .
If Kadafi starts killing his own (Muslim) citizens he's just going to
politically isolate himself further both in the Muslim world and
globally. (making America look like the good guys again... much like
they were post 1991 until Bush decided to go it alone)
Charles Bell
> On Mar 20, 4:05 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 3:38 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
> > > Obama will win this phony war, declare a defeat in Afghanistan a
> > > victory and retreat from there by the summer of 2012.
>
> > > Do you really think it's going to be that soon, Charles? Despite your
> > > obvious dislike of this President you're putting too much faith in
> > > him.
>
> > I think he is an evil man. He has a willing agent in the press --
> > except, what did you call it? Faux News?
>
> Fox News routinely reports falsehoods then does nothing.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/us-to-spend-200-mn-a-day-on-obama-s-mumbai-visit-64106
Press Trust of India, Updated: November 03, 2010 08:25 IST
Mumbai: The US would be spending a whopping $200 million (Rs. 900
crore approx) per day on President Barack Obama's visit to the city.
WSJ later revised the figure downward to an uncalculated amount when
the fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which were to
patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast, were excluded from the
total.
Both Fox News and CNN reported both stories.
CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021841-503544.html
The General Accounting Office did a study of a 10-day trip to Africa
by President Bill Clinton. The report found that the total cost for
the trip was $42 million. That figure did not take into account the
airplanes, helicopters and support personnel who accompany the
president, however.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 20, 8:59 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Obama commences an altruist war in Libya at the behest and under the direction of the U.N. and the French.
>
> Obama did the right thing in waiting for the UN security council to
> agree
Obama is doing the wrong thing, and unless the U.N. passes a
resolution that concerns the U.S. the U.N. is irrelevant as to what
the President ought to do or say.
In light of your recent posts on the subject, you are a hypocrite for
suggesting any such thing.
Non-causal
> On Mar 20, 8:42 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 8:59 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Obama commences an altruist war in Libya at the behest and under the direction of the U.N. and the French.
>
> > Obama did the right thing in waiting for the UN security council to
> > agree
>
> Obama is doing the wrong thing, and unless the U.N. passes a
> resolution that concerns the U.S. the U.N. is irrelevant as to what
> the President ought to do or say.
If concern for the interests of people in other nations doesn't matter
at all to a nation's foreign policy, then the government in question
should pull out of the UN. If could even say found a party that
attacks any country that doesn't agree with its government. Steal the
land and property of the locals at will and justify it all under "self-
defense". Sounds kind of familiar though.
> In light of your recent posts on the subject, you are a hypocrite for suggesting any such thing.
Actually my recent posts suggested mostly non-intervention and that if
there is a no-fly zone Obama should wait for a UN Security council
agreement. (which he did and which he got).
i.e.
"Again... if America intervenes militarily (without UN Security
council
agreement and troops from other nations).... the narrative will
eventually become "America props up another front man in Muslim
country". It is against American interests to intervene solo. Better
to send humanitarian aid and let the Libyan people work things out for
themselves. (and I don't think Gaddafi's government will survive
either way). If there needs to be a no-fly zone... all the nations on
the security council agree (so no one can later try and wag self-
righteous fingers at anyone else) "
https://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_thread/thread/2ee6b16c077ef0b4
Some countries have already tried (unsurprisingly) to weasel their way
out but given they chose to support intervention (vis-a-vis a no-fly
zone UN resolution) any cries of foul are fairly lame. Even the
abstains knew a no-fly zones involved destroying some ground targets.
Rather than turn this into another costly Iraq war everyone should
just continue working through the UN. The UN was created for these
exact exact sorts of situations. (and I would note America was one of
the key founding nations of the UN) There isn't a president with any
sort real power at the UN. The UN is just a fora where nations
intersect to resolve differences in opinions and interests.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 20, 9:37 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 8:42 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 20, 8:59 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Obama commences an altruist war in Libya at the behest and under the direction of the U.N. and the French.
>
> > > Obama did the right thing in waiting for the UN security council to
> > > agree
>
> > Obama is doing the wrong thing, and unless the U.N. passes a
> > resolution that concerns the U.S. the U.N. is irrelevant as to what
> > the President ought to do or say.
>
> If concern for the interests of people in other nations doesn't matter
> at all to a nation's foreign policy, then the government in question
> should pull out of the UN.
You are as hypocritical as they come. All of your points are exactly
applicable to the war in Iraq, except for the fact that the U.N. had
some 240+ resolutions against Iraq, and none against Libya, but did
not have a final go for military action against Iraq because France
would not agree because it had an interest in continuing the oil-for-
food loophole with Hussein's Iraq, but now that France has specific
oil interest in Libya that is interrupted, you find that acceptable.
The U.S. could have and should have vetoed any military action in
Libya to intervene in a civil war, and what can only be considered a
civil war and nothing else, the result of which either way is not a
matter for the U.S. to consider.
Non-causal
> You are as hypocritical as they come.
And according to a recent post of yours David Friedman... a Professor
of Law at a university he teaches at......a PhD in physics... brought
up in a household with world class intellects rummaging around....
published several books on economics...... is "anti-intellectual,
parasitical, ivory-tower fool".
https://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_thr
ead/thread/1c0feb1e38fea85e/6a5e87bd7aada31f
> All of your points are exactly
> applicable to the war in Iraq, except for the fact that the U.N. had
> some 240+ resolutions against Iraq, and none against Libya, but did
> not have a final go for military action against Iraq because France
> would not agree because it had an interest in continuing the oil-for-
> food loophole with Hussein's Iraq, but now that France has specific
> oil interest in Libya that is interrupted, you find that acceptable.
Why are focusing on France? (another enemy on your hit list?) In case
you've forgotten even fricken Canada (arguably America's closest
friend) didn't support Bush in Iraq. In fact, most of world didn't
agree (including most of Asia, Africa, South America, North America
and even a pretty good chunk of America itself). Nearly half of the
"coalition of the willing" seems to have been made up of "allies" that
offered to slaughter Iraqis for Bush simply in exchange for some sort
of political favours. Does that came across anything like the
principled alliance against communism, fascism or even the first gulf
war?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Coalition_of_the_willing
.svg
Christian white man Bush didn't want to hear it though. He simply
wanted yes men so as to make a few brown skinned Muslims pay for 9/11.
We are talking over a trillion US tax dollars here. How many American
lives could have been extended or improved with that money Charles?
(or putting the money to servicing debt.. or gasp... offering to help
Muslim countries with humanitarian aid rather than constantly bombing
them) Are you feeling safe from what you now call "Islamo-fascism"
after the Iraq invasion? Is Islam going away anytime soon? So what
exactly was achieved by Bush in Iraq other than helping Osama generate
further global hysteria over the tragedy of 9/11 and fresh recruits
for religious fundamentalism? Freedom for Iraqis? If anything, Iraq is
actually slowly turning into another Islamic stronghold. Even under
Saddam westerners could actually walk the streets in Iraq. Today we
better bring a bullet proof vest and drive a tank so an IED won't blow
our legs off.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1627686.php/S
even-killed-in-attacks-across-Iraq
Bush wasn't elected President of the world. He was just elected
President of America. The second he started flipping the bird to the
concerns of the rest of the world was the second the world started
flipping a finger back. Al Qaeda couldn't have done a finer job than
Bush encouraging the spread of religious fundamentalism and thus
undermining not only the security of America but humanity itself..
Bush behaved more like a communist propagandist thug than a principled
Jefferson (going so far as to even seemingly support torture.. i.e war
crimes) It wasn't Bush's cause that was in error. It was his lack of
morals that undermined his cause which was the problem. Pride just
keeps (some) that voted for him from admitting his invasion was a
giant mistake. Fortunately I think the majority of Americans
(including many Republicans) have slowly realized that they were
manipulated into a pointless war by grossly incompetent leadership.
(e.g. Still waiting for Bush to produce Iraqi WMDs).
Good people try to admit their mistakes once and awhile you know.
Going to one's grave not admitting our mistakes isn't evidence one
didn't make any. It's just evidence we let our egos foolishly
interfere with our rational judgment. No nation is without occasional
flaws in judgment though. A good thing about Americans is they've
generally learned from their mistakes
> The U.S. could have and should have vetoed any military action in
> Libya to intervene in a civil war, and what can only be considered a
> civil war and nothing else, the result of which either way is not a
> matter for the U.S. to consider.
Yet according to John Bolton... a key figure of the US administration
under Bush.... Obama didn't act quick enough to impose a no-fly zone!
"Bolton told fellow party members that had he been in charge, he would
have moved far more swiftly and would have unilaterally declared a no-
fly zone in Libya during the early stage of the crisis."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-bolton-convention-20110319,0,3212
534.story?track=rss
I've already said in black in white I don't support military
intervention in Libya beyond "If there needs to be a no-fly zone...
all the nations on the security council agree". This way no one can
convincingly blame Americans or Russians or Chinese or Christians or
Jews or Muslims or anyone else if things don't work out. It matters
because what incompetent diplomats like John Bolton simply don't get
is if actions are unilateral in international disputes it generates
finger pointing games which can create hostility beyond the problem
nation in question. (which in some cases may be unavoidable but in
this instance it clearly wasn't)
The main issue on the table should be getting Libya get back on its
feet... not 3rd party nations using Libya as some sort of soapbox to
generate hostility against one another. The no-fly zone's main purpose
is just so Khadaffi can't aerial bombard his own citizens not to
determine Libya's future. (much like the no-fly zone in Iraq didn't
oust Saddam). The Libyan people need to decide for themselves what
they want to do. Unless some sort of major bloodbath starts happening
and the UN begs for support from other nations there is no need for
further direct military intervention. Even further sanctions against
Libya should only be considered if it Khadaffi continues to slaughter
his own citizens (since all they do is hurt the Libyan people... not
Khadaffi who will continue to live like a king). The main thing I
would do now is just the standard procedure of sending in some human
rights groups to monitor the situation and some humanitarian aid while
working with the UN (in particular the security council and Arab
league) . Unless Libyan's attack another nation or slaughtering each
other wholesale their national sovereignty has to be respected.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 21, 4:22 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > You are as hypocritical as they come.
>
> And according to a recent post of yours David Friedman... a Professor
> of Law at a university he teaches at......a PhD in physics... brought
> up in a household with world class intellects rummaging around....
> published several books on economics...... is "anti-intellectual,
> parasitical, ivory-tower fool"
Those "credentials" make it even more likely for him to be so, a lot
like the cycle of welfare moms. With the exception of the Bach family,
and maybe some others in music and mathematics, there is only ever one
genuine genius in a family and that particular Friedman family has not
had one yet, so there's hope down the way, perhaps.
>
> Why are focusing on France? (another enemy on your hit list?)
France has had clear and unencumbered oil interests in Libya since the
collapse of its oil-for-food scheme with Hussein in Iraq from 2003
whereas Britain was just in on the act more recently (2009) with the
release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish prison as a trade for
BP in Libya. BP financial stake by, for, and through Obama (who gave a
nod to the release) is also well known.
Obama has done his opponents a favor in providing a tangible
impeachable offense in his violation of the War Powers Act. This war
in Libya cannot be justified as having started on immediate and
exigent circumstances and required consultation with Congress which it
never got. Bush's War in Iraq was meticulously legal and fully
constitutional, clearly goal-directed and finite.
Paul Robinson
[Bell] The U.S. could have and should have vetoed any military action
in Libya to intervene in a civil war, and what can only be considered
a civil war and nothing else, the result of which either way is not a
matter for the U.S. to consider.
Mr. Bell, I can almost agree with you on one point. The use of
military attacks by a government upon its own citizens has been
declared to be a war crime in violation of the Geneva Conventions and
the decisions at the Nuremberg War Crimes trial. The concept of
Universal Jurisdiction established at Nuremberg gives any other
country the right, but not the obligation, to intervene to stop the
continued commission of war crimes.
I do not think Libya has ever publicly repudiated the decision at
Nuremberg and I think it is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and
has not revoked its accession to them.
I think Mr. Obama should also have had congressional approval although
I suppose he claims he has it under the War Powers Act which allows
the President to engage in military proceedings for 60 days without
further authorization from Congress. Congress has standing to stop
him if it chooses; they can sue arguing the War Powers Act is
unconstitutional since it delegates a power from congress to the
President that is non-delegatable, the ability to declare war.
But you're right on one point. It'll never happen, but I do believe
Mr. Obama's action represents an impeachable act since he did not ask
for a declaration of war. However, it can be argued that - whether
you think this president is capable of doing anything in good faith -
that a good faith reliance upon the War Powers Act might be reasonable
under the circumstances.
But where are the Republicans?
Paul Robinson
[Bell]. Bush's War in Iraq was meticulously legal and fully
constitutional, clearly goal-directed and finite.
Yeah, right, that's why it kept on running through his presidency even
after he supposedly declared hostilities ended. If you're going to
argue that a Continuing Resolution isn't a legitimate budget, I'm
going to argue that unless Congress declares War it's not a legitimate
military action (absent short-term military responses). We declared
war on December 8, 1941. Once hostilities ended in Japan at the
signing of the peace treaty on the Missouri, all further military
actions after that were not by a congressional declaration of War and
illegal.
I'd make an exception for an immediate attack in response to any
attacks upon U.S. targets. The Iranian attack upon our embassy. The
embassy bombings. The U.S.S. Cole. The Pentagon on 9/11 if we had
someone right away to go after.
Anyone who thinks Bush Jr. couldn't have gotten a declaration of War
from Congress on September 12, 2001 needs to examine their premises,
and maybe their have it done to their head.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 21, 4:22 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [Bell] The U.S. could have and should have vetoed any military action
> in Libya to intervene in a civil war, and what can only be considered
> a civil war and nothing else, the result of which either way is not a
> matter for the U.S. to consider.
>
> Mr. Bell, I can almost agree with you on one point. The use of
> military attacks by a government upon its own citizens has been
> declared to be a war crime in violation of the Geneva Conventions and
> the decisions at the Nuremberg War Crimes trial.
Sorry, but that is far too broad a reading of the Geneva Conventions
with respect to the conduct of a civil war. There would, at least,
have to be evidence that Gaddafi was indiscriminately killing and
pillaging civilians -- just like Lincoln's scourched earth policy in
the South -- for there to be brought a case, and from what I have seen
there is a citizen's revolt acting *as if* an opposing army to the
established government. Ergo, no case.
> I think Mr. Obama should also have had congressional approval although
> I suppose he claims he has it under the War Powers Act which allows
> the President to engage in military proceedings for 60 days without
> further authorization from Congress.
Every single President since Ford and the Mayaguez Incident has given
some notification of intent to Congress except Obama. That is
certainly in the spirit of the law, and maybe the law is
unconstitutional, but I think not -- if the incident is not immediate
and the consultation with leaders of Congress, who say nay, is not
binding on the President.
>
> But you're right on one point. It'll never happen, but I do believe
> Mr. Obama's action represents an impeachable act since he did not ask
> for a declaration of war.
It think the intent of the WPA was to provide a reasonable bridge
between a short police-action (think: Jefferson and the Barbary
pirates in the first Tripolitan War) and war *without* the police
action being conducted as if a war as was the case in Vietnam 1963
(Diem assassination) -1965 (Gulf of Tonkin) but others make that the
entirety of that war and I would not disagree vigorously.
> However, it can be argued that - whether
> you think this president is capable of doing anything in good faith -
> that a good faith reliance upon the War Powers Act might be reasonable
> under the circumstances.
>
> But where are the Republicans?
It looks to me split right down the middle because of a conservative-
hawk distaste for the WPA and a desire to show action against evil
leaders -- but wow! of the battles Obama might pick, this one? IT IS A
LOSER in substance even if some pretty facade will be put over it.
Paul Robinson
[Bell]�This war in Libya cannot be justified as having started on
immediate and exigent circumstances and required consultation with
Congress which it never got. Bush's War in Iraq was meticulously legal
and fully constitutional, clearly goal-directed and finite.
You know, Mr. Bell, I have to thank you, I decided to go take a look.
President Bush Jr. was given military authority to act by a joint
resolution of Congress which was signed by the President. You seem to
feel this represents a "meticulously legal and fully constitutional"
act.
Yet when the exact same thing is done by Congress to set temporary
appropriations by a Continuing Resolution you consider that
unconstitutional.
I guess the constitutionality of an act of Congress depends on whether
you like the President who is acting under that act. If Bush Jr. does
it, it's perfectly okay, if Obama does it, it's unconstitutional.
You're clearly a hypocrite, Ding Dong.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 21, 7:13 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [Bell] This war in Libya cannot be justified as having started on
> immediate and exigent circumstances and required consultation with
> Congress which it never got. Bush's War in Iraq was meticulously legal
> and fully constitutional, clearly goal-directed and finite.
>
> You know, Mr. Bell, I have to thank you, I decided to go take a look.
> President Bush Jr. was given military authority to act by a joint
> resolution of Congress which was signed by the President. �You seem to
> feel this represents a "meticulously legal and fully constitutional"
> act.
>
Yes, that is what the Constitution requires.
> Yet when the exact same thing is done by Congress to set temporary
> appropriations by a Continuing Resolution you consider that
> unconstitutional.
>
Yes, that is against what the Constitution requires in formalizing
budget appropriations in law before money is spent, rather than
justifying what is spent in good-enough legalisms. The 111th Congress
never passed a budget or a single appropriation bill for what has has
been spent since October 2010, and Democrats in the Senate continue
obstruct what the Constitution requires. What would be fair outcome
would be that government ought to shut down and everybody go home to
reflect on the treason the federal government commits against the
people.
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 21, 9:02 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
resolution of Congress which was signed by the President. You seem to
feel this represents a "meticulously legal and fully constitutional"
act.
[Bell] Yes, that is what the Constitution requires.
Do you even know where?
[Me] Yet when the exact same thing is done by Congress to set
temporary appropriations by a Continuing Resolution you consider that
unconstitutional.
[Bell] Yes, that is against what the Constitution requires in
formalizing budget appropriations in law before money is spent, rather
than justifying what is spent in good-enough legalisms.
Again you keep mentioning a budget, where does the Constitution
mention a budget? I mean, it does mention appropriations, and from
what I've seen does not mention a *minimum* time for them to be
issued, but I've not seen a mention of a "budget" although there might
be something else. You keep claiming there is one but when I ask for a
quote from the specific provision of the Constitution that says so you
can't seem to find it.
[Bell] The 111th Congress never passed a budget or a single
appropriation bill for what has has been spent since October 2010, and
Democrats in the Senate continue obstruct what the Constitution
requires.
Again, where in the Constitution does it require this? What are the
exact terms?
[Bell] What would be fair outcome would be that government ought to
shut down and everybody go home to reflect on the treason the federal
government commits against the people.
Hold it Mr. Bell, I see you trying to deal seconds. The Constitution
does define what "treason" means. Do you know what that definition
is? If you do know what that definition is, please explain how what
is happening represents "treason". Treason happens to be a Capital
offense. Besides, the Congress is not the (entire) Federal
government:
Jubal Harshaw: Well, who do you think is responsible?
Jill: We know that, it's the government!
Jubal: Jill, 'the government' is several million people.
- Robert A. Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land"
Charles Bell
> On Mar 22, 5:18 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 21, 9:02 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
> Again you keep mentioning a budget, where does the Constitution
> mention a budget? I mean, it does mention appropriations, and from
> what I've seen does not mention a *minimum* time for them to be
> issued, but I've not seen a mention of a "budget" although there might
> be something else. You keep claiming there is one but when I ask for a
> quote from the specific provision of the Constitution that says so you
> can't seem to find it.
>
Article I section 9 clause 7 says that Congress cannot take from the
treasury without law. Law in the 18th century did not mean
legislation to rob the treasury. {Can you believe their weird, archaic
twisted vocabulary?) Do you agree that it is possible for the
Congress to simply pass legislation that says taxes for everyone be $0
and entitlements for everyone be $100,000 per annum? And, as you say,
there is "no minimum time" for anything, so just make it last for ever
and ever and ever through endless continuing resolutions. Then a
president signs it. The law would thus be "legal" and YOU CLAIM
perfectly constitutional. Why have Article 1.9.7 if it has no meaning?
Frankly, I do not think it a stretch that persistent and permanent
debt (there being no actual money in the treasury to take from once it
has run dry) is also unconsitutional by a reasonable interpretation
of Article 1.9.7. In any case, there can be no other interpretation
than it was to mean fiscal responsibilty -- for otherwise WHAT WOULD
IT MEAN? that Congressmen ought not skip over to the treasury and
withdraw gold coins for booze and hookers? -- as might as well have
been the case for the 111th Congress, not needing no stinkin' budget
or political accountability for what the federal government has been
spending since Oct 2010.
> [Bell] The 111th Congress never passed a budget or a single
> appropriation bill for what has has been spent since October 2010, and
> Democrats in the Senate continue obstruct what the Constitution
> requires.
>
> Again, where in the Constitution does it require this? What are the
> exact terms?
It is a statement of fact, distinguishing the 111th Congress as
singularly incompetent, and there is meaning to Article 1,9,7 beyond
Congress can do whatever the hell it pleases so long it passes laws
that say it can
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 22, 3:28 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 5:18 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 21, 9:02 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
mention a budget? I mean, it does mention appropriations, and from
what I've seen does not mention a *minimum* time for them to be
issued, but I've not seen a mention of a "budget" although there might
be something else. You keep claiming there is one but when I ask for
a quote from the specific provision of the Constitution that says so
you can't seem to find it.
[Bell] Article I section 9 clause 7 says that Congress cannot take
from the treasury without law. Law in the 18th century did not mean
legislation to rob the treasury. {Can you believe their weird, archaic
twisted vocabulary?)
That you have correct. Now we're getting somewhere.
[Bell] Do you agree that it is possible for the Congress to simply
pass legislation that says taxes for everyone be $0 and entitlements
for everyone be $100,000 per annum?
Is it possible, yes. Would it work? Until the currency inflated to
Zimbabwe levels. And don't give them ideas. Never underestimate the
power of Congress to act stupidly, Mr. Bell.
[Bell] And, as you say, there is "no minimum time" for anything, so
just make it last for ever and ever and ever through endless
continuing resolutions. Then a president signs it. The law would thus
be "legal" and YOU CLAIM
perfectly constitutional. Why have Article 1.9.7 if it has no meaning?
I did not say it has no meaning and the way it's being done does have
meaning. Congress creates a bill setting appropriations. Good
practice would be to do so for a full year; that's what is nicknamed
"The Budget". (Actually, it's more like 13 bills.) The bill is
(bills are) filed with the Clerk of the House, given an HR number,
goes through committees, sent to the Senate, goes through committees,
comes back to the House so a joint committee can settle the
differences, then sent to the President for his signature (or veto),
it comes back; if it was signed it's now a law; if it wasn't then
Congress tries to override the veto; if they do it's also a law,
otherwise it's dead.
Current practice is, Congress creates a law setting temporary
appropriations, e.g. 3 weeks at a time. The law is filed with the
Clerk of the House, given an HR number, is pushed through the
"Committee of the Whole" and goes directly to the Senate, which, as
its Committee of the Whole, approves it as is. Since the Senate has
returned it approved but unchanged, it can go direct to the President
for signature. That's a continuing resolution. It may be a
disgusting way to do business but unfortunately, being a shameful way
to run a railroad does not make the process any less constitutionally
valid.
It does have a meaning. It means that both houses of Congress and the
President agree on the amounts to be spent.
> Frankly, I do not think it a stretch that persistent and permanent
> debt (there being no actual money in the treasury to take from once it
> has run dry) is also unconsitutional by a reasonable interpretation
> of Article 1.9.7.
Actually, to the extent it would apply here 1.9.7 is overridden by the
14th Amendment, which you're probably not aware of; most people
aren't. Most people think it's just equal protection, they miss the
first sentence of this part of the 14th: "Section 4. The validity of
the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including
debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in
suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
To put it bluntly, Congress can do exactly what you suggested, give
everyone $100,000 a year, not collect any taxes, and as long as they
"put it on the credit card" as a result of a law, it's "as legal as
church on Sunday." That's why the law to raise the debt ceiling is
the clincher and both sides know it. If they don't raise the debt
ceiling the government can't legally spend any money it doesn't have.
That would be why the Federal government would have to shut down if
there was no raise in the debt ceiling.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 22, 8:03 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 22, 3:28 pm, Paul
> from the treasury without law. Law in the 18th century did not mean
> legislation to rob the treasury. {Can you believe their weird, archaic
> twisted vocabulary?)
>
> That you have correct. Now we're getting somewhere.
>
> [Bell] Do you agree that it is possible for the Congress to simply
> pass legislation that says taxes for everyone be $0 and entitlements
> for everyone be $100,000 per annum?
>
> Is it possible, yes.
I rest my case. The Constitution demands that Congress shall not
steal, cheat, deceive the people of their money under the guise of
legalisms.
> To put it bluntly, Congress can do exactly what you suggested, give
> everyone $100,000 a year, not collect any taxes, and as long as they
> "put it on the credit card" as a result of a law,
x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.
Non-causal
http://www.rferl.org/content/feature_on_debate_on_intervention_in_libya_/234
7454.html
However in this instance I don't hold anything against western
countries. The entire UN security council all knew what agreeing to a
no-fly zone would involve but still signed the dotted line (thus any
complaints are just politicians dishonestly posturing not anything to
be taken too seriously)
However, this doesn't mean country's logistically involved in the
actual no-fly should ignore their concerns. They should be making
adjustments accordingly to continue to get statements of support
(especially from countries like China, India, Russia, the arab league,
and the UN). This isn't the west's war. Its the UN that made that
resolution. If countries are serious about their complains about too
much force being used in the no-fly zone... use less force. (and get
Chinese, Russian, Arab and Indian officials part of the decision
making process on what is precisely allowable and what isn't in the no-
fly zone)
Also, Obama should avoid taking the lead too much and also bring other
partners in as media spokesman to emphasize this was a joint effort
from day one. For instance Canada wouldn't be a bad choice. Being one
of the most multi-ethnic nations in the world Canada can hardly be
accused of being racists. And its not exactly like Canada is known as
a nation that invades other countries. (and I don't say this because
I'm Canadian but because it seems to makes sense)
Finally I think its very important to stop bombing and sending in
humanitarian aid as soon as possible. No weapons. Just things like a
steady stream of food and medicine. No need to land. Just drop them in
by parachute into the areas were there has been conflict and injuries
(including on Qaddafi's side of things) I know Oists don't care about
the humanitarian side of things but I think for many there are actual
good intentions here not just Libya's negligible oil as some
ignorantly claim. (e.g. Libya is ranked roughly 18th in the world with
far less production than countries like Russia, US and Saudi Arabia.)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_prod
uction
Obviously everyone wants the democratic forces to win but it cannot be
imposed. Libya's national sovereignty has to be respected. It has to
be ultimately decided on by the Libyan people (even if they decide for
the worse). We have no right to impose our will on them. They didn't
attack anyone. The ONLY moral and rational justification for the no-
fly zone was/is humanitarian (effectively limiting Qaddafi from
slaughtering his own people wholesale) . It it turns into another
attempt at regime change Libya (e.g. NATO troops building more bases
on Muslim lands or picking sides) it will just turn the situation from
a chance at grass roots democratic rule into the next front for
jihadists and another senseless money pit like Iraq. (plausibly
negatively effecting other regions with similar movements).
Charles Bell
>
> Also, Obama should avoid taking the lead too much and also bring other
> partners in as media spokesman to emphasize this was a joint effort
> from day one.
You're nuts. Obama cannot take the lead, of course, either because he
is the stupidest President since James Buchanan, or he is just the
laziest who does not give an damn about anything other than playing
golf, working his basketball brackets, and making sure Michelle
Antoinette has cake while Americans go on jobless. The U.S does not
need Libyan oil and France does. It had to suspend production on
February 23 in French Total Oil fields. If France wants to fight this
war and claim "humanitarian" reasons, that's its business.
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 22, 10:55 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 8:03 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 22, 3:28 pm, Paul
[Bell] Article I section 9 clause 7 says that Congress cannot take
from the treasury without law. Law in the 18th century did not mean
legislation to rob the treasury. {Can you believe their weird, archaic
twisted vocabulary?)
[Me] That you have correct. Now we're getting somewhere.
[Bell] Do you agree that it is possible for the Congress to simply
pass legislation that says taxes for everyone be $0 and entitlements
for everyone be $100,000 per annum?
[Me] Is it possible, yes.
[Bell] I rest my case. The Constitution demands that Congress shall
not steal, cheat, deceive the people of their money under the guise of
legalisms.
It does not say that, and you know it. You asked me if it was
possible. I did not say it was a good idea and I pointed out that it
wouldn't work. I also pointed out that as long as Congress enacts a
public debt it can spend as much as it can get away with, and Section
4 of the 14th Amendment doesn't put any limits at all on how much they
spend, how long they spend it for, or what they spend it on as long as
they pass a law to raise the debt ceiling.
So actually, the Constitution does permit Congress to steal, cheat or
deceive the people of their money as long as they do it through
appropriations, taxes and debt financing. Oh plus printing money,
which the states can't do. Which is why the states have to balance
their budgets, they can't spend forever. They lack 'the power of the
printing press'.
The countries in Europe who are now in trouble and needed bailouts -
Greece and Iceland, if I'm not mistaken - have discovered how much
more powerful the ability to print money is over anything they got
from being part of the E.U.
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 23, 12:35 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Non-causal] Also, Obama should avoid taking the lead too much and
also bring other partners in as media spokesman to emphasize this was
a joint effort from day one.
[Bell] You're nuts. Obama cannot take the lead, of course, either
because he is the stupidest President since James Buchanan,
I think we can give that award to George W. Bush (Bush Jr.). Now, on
the other hand, Bush Sr. was a very smart man. Not politically savvy,
but quite intelligent. I'm still trying to figure out who's stupider,
Bush Jr. or Dan Quayle, and I am thinking I'm going to have to rate
Quayle higher than W.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 23, 5:09 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 12:35 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [Non-causal] Also, Obama should avoid taking the lead too much and
> also bring other partners in as media spokesman to emphasize this was
> a joint effort from day one.
>
> [Bell] You're nuts. Obama cannot take the lead, of course, either
> because he is the stupidest President since James Buchanan,
>
> I think we can give that award to George W. Bush (Bush Jr.).
No we can't. Bush won a necessary and declared War in Iraq. President
Bush was a fine President, competent in everything he needed to
accomplish and hopefully the last consensus Republican President for
some time.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 23, 4:42�am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 22, 10:55 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 22, 8:03 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 22, 3:28 pm, Paul
>
> [Bell] Article I section 9 clause 7 says that Congress cannot take
> from the treasury without law. Law in the 18th century did not mean
> legislation to rob the treasury. {Can you believe their weird, archaic
> twisted vocabulary?)
>
> [Me] That you have correct. Now we're getting somewhere.
>
> [Bell] Do you agree that it is possible for the Congress to simply
> pass legislation that says taxes for everyone be $0 and entitlements
> for everyone be $100,000 per annum?
>
> [Me] Is it possible, yes.
>
> [Bell] I rest my case. The Constitution demands that Congress shall
> not steal, cheat, deceive the people of their money under the guise of
> legalisms.
>
> It does not say that, and you know it.
Until you give a meaning to Article 1,9,7 you have nothing to say in
rebuttal. IOW: how would Congress appropriate money from the treasury
without "in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law"? The clause is
in there AS A SPECIFIED LIMIT ON CONGRESS, not the President, not the
states. Why?
Non-causal
> On Mar 23, 12:35 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Also, Obama should avoid taking the lead too much and also bring other
> > partners in as media spokesman to emphasize this was a joint effort
> > from day one.
>
> You're nuts. Obama cannot take the lead,
Virtually in every UN peacekeeping missions the US takes the lead.
There is a fairly obvious reason for this.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
I'm not saying the US is obligated to participate. Far from. If it
doesn't want to involve itself I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm only
saying this if it does it should avoid putting itself in the
spotlight. Let other countries take the heat. (else it will draw out
the jihadists who will manipulate the situation as an example of the
"great Satan" interfering )
> The U.S does not need Libyan oil and France does. It had to suspend production on
> February 23 in French Total Oil fields. If France wants to fight this
> war and claim "humanitarian" reasons, that's its business.
Some times you claim you are trying to protect liberty yet your
argument above essentially amounts to only caring about oil. Which way
is it going to be?
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 23, 6:45 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 5:09 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Mar 23, 12:35 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Non-causal] Also, Obama should avoid taking the lead too much and
also bring other partners in as media spokesman to emphasize this was
a joint effort from day one.
[Bell] You're nuts. Obama cannot take the lead, of course, either
because he is the stupidest President since James Buchanan,
[Me] I think we can give that award to George W. Bush (Bush Jr.).
[Bell] No we can't. Bush won a necessary and declared War in Iraq.
President Bush was a fine President, competent in everything he needed
to accomplish and hopefully the last consensus Republican President
for some time.
Jim Klein was right about you, although I don't use ad-hominem
attacks. Your opinion is stupid and ignores reality. For one thing,
for someone who supposedly argues over the Constitution, you seem to
forget that we did not declare war on Iraq. At best it can be argued
that Congress agreed to the use of military force, which is NOT a
declaration of war.
I'll throw it out here and now: $100 bucks says you can't find any
resolution issued by Congress and no statute that says that the U.S.
has declared war on Iraq. I never bet unless I'm certain to win. I'd
make the bet $10,000 except that I'm sure you can't afford to pay it
if you lose.
Care to take that bet, Charles? (Hint: It's a sucker bet.)
Non-causal
> No we can't. Bush won a necessary and declared War in Iraq. President
> Bush was a fine President, competent in everything he needed to
> accomplish
Just because he was a Republican President doesn't mean you have to
have blind allegiance to him. He wasted a trillion US tax dollars to
set up another Islamic republic, he left America's economy in taters,
and caused serious international damage to America's name. Then of
course there is that whole torture thing. He would have been far
better off staying governor of Texas. He was just too ignorant about
affairs and attitudes outside of America to formulate sensible
foreign policy.
And again I say this is someone that liked both Reagan and Bush Sr.
Reagan wasn't the brightest President but he had principles and great
personal charm. It was very useful in building a relationship with
Gorbachev that ultimately lead to the collapse of the communism (i.e.
we very well may still have still been worrying about communism today
if it wasn't for Reagan and Gorbachev ). Bush Sr. was a smart cookie.
He handled the Gulf war near perfectly. It was clearly cut. Saddam was
the bad guy. America took the heroic lead. The only possible criticism
to be made (in retrospect) is perhaps that was the moment of regime
change not 12 years later. I'm not sure why they left him in place
but they must have discussed the matter in detail.
Charles Bell
> you seem to
> forget that we did not declare war on Iraq.
Yes, we did, twice, in the general authorization that led us into
Afghanistan and then one specifically for Iraq.
> At best it can be argued
> that Congress agreed to the use of military force, which is NOT a
> declaration of war.
>
There is no specifc wording required for declaration, and the "use of
military force" and "war" distinction was only a Democrat's weasle's
way out of taking responsiblity for what they voted for.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 23, 6:52 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > No we can't. Bush won a necessary and declared War in Iraq. President
> > Bush was a fine President, competent in everything he needed to
> > accomplish
>
> Just because he was a Republican President
President Bush was a fine President, competent in everything he needed
to accomplish and accomplished everything he said he would -- save the
final installation on the 1986 Moynihan Commission on Social Security
reform, the money for which was spent throughout the Clinton years to
"balance the budget". The budgets passed always included more spending
that he requested, but even so, until the Democrats took control in
2007 there was a steady progression to zero deficit (1/12th of what it
is now after 4 years of Democrat control (*)) in a healthy economy
lasting longer in duration than any since Reagan's time. For the first
time since 1974, and for seven years, no American civilian not in a
war zone was killed or harmed by muslim terrorists or any boat or ship
pirated by muslims; unemployment was low; inflation was low. One proud
to be an American could only be proud to have him as President. The
2008 collapse in the financial sector, in full view of and abetted by
a Democrat Congress, was created by the Carter administration and
pulled into the banking system by the Clinton Justice department and
social-justice, racist community organizers like Obama.
President Bush ended the exuberant speculation on oil prices, excited
by the return to power of the eco-friendly Democrats, by ending the
executive order against offshore drilling and worked with Congress to
establish a five-year plan on the means to safely and expediously to
do so.
The second act as President (after ending Gitmo, of course) O-bomber
cancelled that five year plan without any plan for implementation. He
has since, against a contempt of court order from a federal judge,
hindered existing off-shore oil drilling.
(*) for 2007 -$160 billion and for 2011, for the month of February
ALONE - $223 biilion.
Charles Bell
>
> Some times you claim you are trying to protect liberty
I do not agree with this "protect liberty" of Libyans argument.
For Americans other than O-bomber. this is an altuist war, and only an
altruist war, and altruism is evil.
Non-causal
> altruism is evil.
Altruism isn't evil. It just is what is it is and shouldn't be coerced
or done through manipulative guilt games. (else it isn't altruism)
If someone enjoys helping someone else it no skin off my back what
they do with their money or time. I actually kind of like it when
people help others in their community.
For instance, some of the wealthiest people the world have pledged to
give a fair chunk of their wealth to the Gates foundation upon death.
I think that's a far more noble alternative than simply passing it all
down to their children that didn't earn a cent of it. (which amounts
to aristocracy not meritocracy) . I''m sure their children can survive
with a few hundred million each. If they are deserving of more let
them earn it like everyone else. (not to mention they'd have much more
respect for themselves if they did)
Non-causal
Out of curiosity.... would you protect American liberty before your
own economic self-interest?
Paul Robinson
President Bush was a fine President, competent in everything he
needed to accomplish
[Non-causal] Just because he was a Republican President doesn't mean
you have to have blind allegiance to him.
Considering how Ding Dong can't always see what's in front of him, for
him to have blind allegiance is par for the course.
[Non-causal] He wasted a trillion US tax dollars to set up another
Islamic republic, he left America's economy in taters,
He put us in fried potatoes? Or would Quayle have said "fried
potatoees"? I'll bet that was tasty! Maybe you meant "tatters". I
don't usually correct spelling except it reminded me of Quayle from
the first Bush.
[Non-causal] and caused serious international damage to America's
name. Then of course there is that whole torture thing.
Since the U.S. is the only remaining superpower there's no danger
anyone from the Bush Jr. Administration is ever going to be charged
with War Crimes. Otherwise Chaney and the lawyers who said we could
use torture on prisoners including Waterboarding would be prime
targets. I suspect Dubya could get out of it on grounds of stupidity!
[Non-causal] He would have been far better off staying governor of
Texas. He was just too ignorant about affairs and attitudes outside of
America to formulate sensible foreign policy.
Bush Jr. basically skated by his whole life, I'm not sure but I've
heard everything he ever got involved in failed. The position of
Governor of Texas is almost ceremonial, it has a lot less power than
most other states, the Governor can't even issue pardons, only the
pardon board can do that.
I'm forced to admit if you compared the two even Sarah Palin is
considerably more intelligent than Bush Jr.
[Non-causal] And again I say this is someone that liked both Reagan
and Bush Sr.
I liked them both too. What really impressed me about Bush Sr. is
some of the things he got involved in, apparently direct negotiations
with some scary people who are the type who'd kill you as look at you,
and won them over.
[Non-causal] Reagan wasn't the brightest President but he had
principles and great personal charm. It was very useful in building a
relationship with Gorbachev that ultimately lead to the collapse of
the communism (i.e. we very well may still have still been worrying
about communism today if it wasn't for Reagan and Gorbachev ). Bush
Sr. was a smart cookie. He handled the Gulf war near perfectly. It was
clearly cut. Saddam was the bad guy. America took the heroic lead. The
only possible criticism to be made (in retrospect) is perhaps that was
the moment of regime change not 12 years later. I'm not sure why they
left him in place but they must have discussed the matter in detail.
Having seen what happened now, I suspect that maybe he predicted that
without Saddam you'd get a power vacuum in that part of the world that
Iran would only be too happy to fill. And might not have said
anything lest Iran pull the same stunt on Saddam that they tried on
Salman Rushdie.
Actually, I think Tom Clancy did; he wrote some book where a suicide-
hit team from Iran's leader - a kook looking an awful lot like Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad - blows away the unnamed ruler of Iraq and that's more or
less what happens.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 23, 9:09 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > altruism is evil.
>
> Altruism isn't evil.
Altruism is evil. Doubling down on that evil by government coercion is
doubly evil.
Charles Bell
By definition the interests of the U.S.A. are my interests, and my
question: Why Doesn't David Friedman emigrate to Somalia is not just
rhetorical but cast the "interests" question in two forms. If the
American system of nearly unitary laws, that is, constitutional
federalism, is so wrong and he propounds such good that exists in
sharia law, why does he not live up to his ideals like W.E.B Dubois,
for example? Instead, he insidiously works to take my country away
from the social contract rooted in a history of which any person can
be proud.
Charles Bell
>
> Since the U.S. is the only remaining superpower there's no danger
> anyone from the Bush Jr. Administration is ever going to be charged
Leftist twaddle copied from anti-Faux News mediamatters.org,
Huffingtonpost.com or other socialist propaganda site by someone who
believes that air and everything in it should be owned and controlled
by a government.
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 23, 11:25 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
[Me] Since the U.S. is the only remaining superpower there's no danger
anyone from the Bush Jr. Administration is ever going to be charged
[You] Leftist twaddle copied from anti-Faux News mediamatters.org,
Huffingtonpost.com or other socialist propaganda site by someone who
believes that air and everything in it should be owned and controlled
by a government.
I have never read mediamatters.org. I do not read Huffingtonpost.com
or any other "socialist propaganda site." The only time I read any
leftist site was when you said my interpretation that Marx wasn't an
anarchist was incorrect.
This is my own opinion. You also have the rather unusual habit of
assigning to something a condition not supported by the evidence or
logic, simply based on what you think was said rather than what was
said.
If anything, we should consider *you* leftist, Mr. Bell, I think you
have said you felt that Obama should be impeached for his
unconstitutional attack upon Libya without authorization of Congress.
Nobody on the right is even saying that, only the people on the (far)
left are doing so.
Non-causal
> On Mar 23, 9:43 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 9:09 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > altruism is evil.
>
> > Altruism isn't evil.
>
> Altruism is evil.
You can repeat the words but you have little evidence to support you.
Furthermore arguing against coercion than arguing against altruism
strikes me as a logical contradiction. Altruism isn't a coerced act.
If an individual voluntarily decides to help someone else that's was
their choice. Individuals give time and money to all sorts of things
that give them a good feeling. Claiming a hyperbole "evil" is
arguably what's evil. Over the top language like that is implicitly an
attempt to encourage coercion against individuals that are making
voluntary decisions.
For instance, my guess is probably over 99% of the US population
engage in small acts of altruism (including likely all your
neighbors). Are claiming they all "evil"?
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 24, 5:27 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 9:43 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 23, 9:09 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[Bell] altruism is evil.
[NC] Altruism isn't evil.
[Bell] Altruism is evil.
[NC] You can repeat the words but you have little evidence to support
you.
He has no evidence, he probably doesn't have a clue.
Besides, Rand didn't say that. Allegedly she said, "If any
civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men
have to reject." She's using it in a different sense than most people
do. She's referring to a sacrifice without any gain whatsoever, not
even the feeling of doing good or supporting that which you believe
in. Forced Altruism, like when the government decides to take tax
money from you to give it to someone else, whether or not you
approve. Bell approves of it when it's given to large banks or AIG,
because it's a practice George Bush Jr. liked to engage in. Bell
disapproves of it when it's done by Barack Obama, no matter why.
In fact, if you donate resources you can afford for something you
believe in, that's not sacrifice, and it's probably not altruistic,
you got the satisfaction of assisting in a noble cause (noble to you,
anyway.) If you donate what you can't afford to something you hate,
that's altruistic. If you donate that which causes disaster to you to
a cause you utterly despise, that's the ultimate form of altruism and
sacrifice.
If Charles Bell had the words and the concepts to do so, he could have
said it that way, and if he had, then he would have been correct, that
would be evil.
Just because something appears altruistic doesn't necessarily make it
so, nor is it evil even if it is to some extent altruistic. It
requires more.
"Help the sociopathic. Hire the morally handicapped."
Charles Bell
> On Mar 24, 5:27 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 9:43 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 23, 9:09 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > altruism is evil.
>
> > > Altruism isn't evil.
>
> > Altruism is evil.
>
> You can repeat the words but you have little evidence to support you.
This is an Objectivist NG. Deal with it.
And to prove it: this mission is being sold as a humanitarian mission
and for no other reason, and the fact is it is to protect French and
British oil interests. If something is sold "for the good of the
people" and for no other reason -- and indeed sold as though *can be*
no other reason -- it is only good for the parasites peddling
altruism.
Non-causal
Oist forum or not, you still have not provided any evidence that
altruism is "evil". You claim to be again coercion yet on the other
hand you call a voluntary act "evil"?
Charles Bell
> On Mar 24, 5:02 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Oist forum or not, you still have not provided any evidence that
> altruism is "evil".
You will need to read something by Ayn Rand.
> You claim to be again coercion yet on the other
> hand you call a voluntary act "evil"?
An unconstitutional President commencing in military action against
the leader of a country which has not acted against the U.S. or its
allies since publically giving up that intent after President Bush
(43) went to war against Hussein's Iraq, and showing since then no
sign of that intent, in violation of the War Powers Resolution for the
stated purpose, and only stated purpose, of altruism is evil.
Non-causal
any of evidence that altruism is "evil". Nor have you explained how
you claim to be against coercion yet on the other hand call a
voluntary act (altruism) "evil"?
> An unconstitutional President
Do you have any evidence that Obama is an "unconstitutional
President"?
Non-causal
existence in purely natural terms (or at least in the western sphere).
This created an ideological vacuum in ethics though. Prior to that
period actions were justified as right and wrong on the basis of
mystic assertions. With an entirely natural explanation for the world
on what basis could an action be argued right or wrong then?
(something that mystics even today argue as justification for their
gods) Thus the sophists (still in the pre-Socratic era) arrived at the
conclusion there was no rational basis for right and wrong.
Protagoras, probably looking at the animal kingdom, famously stated
"humans are the measure of all things". There were no truths for
sophists beyond the immediate interests of the arguing sophist
(somewhat similar to what we call relativism today).
Sophists were highly respected and aid to teach the art of rhetoric or
argue on behalf of some cause. It was similar to lawyers of today but
not quite as a sophist's interest was simply persuasion not in
arriving at some moral truth. For instance, a sophist might argue so-
and-so action was immoral if person x did it. Then the very next day
were perfectly content to argue the exact same behavior was righteous
if person y did it. (all depending the sophists interests of the day)
Sophism was unsettling because how was a man supposed to live then if
there was no moral differences between actions?
An explosion in philosophical debate evenually resulted that focused
on trying to find rational arguments for objective moral truths.
(which imo was responsible for Greece's golden age) Philosophers like
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle paved the way by trying to first create
definitions of what represents concepts like knowledge and logic...
then use that to formulate rational arguments for right and wrong
actions. For instance it was viewed as a rational conclusion that a
jurisdiction required some sort of constitution to help define its
ethics (e.g. the Athenian constitution). It was also viewed as
rational that happiness should be one of the goals of a man's life
(e.g Epicurus).
While true individuals did not need to follow such beliefs it would be
like arguing against gravity. Gravity will not change because someone
proclaims it is "irrational" or "unethical". The result will still be
sepukku if one walks off a cliff in defiance of gravity. Similarly
something approximating constitutions and constitutions that work
towards happiness of citizens are ethical truisms not subjective
opinions about ethics. (A tidbit of history. Jefferson, who added the
word "pursuit of happiness" to the US constitution, considered himself
an Epicurean)
However, sophistry has never really gone away entirely. I do not claim
to know the perfect set of ethics but my experience has been a fair
chunk of the people in this world still don't know the difference
between ethics and sophistry. They believe their personal desires are
a synonym for ethics. (i.e. "I want" with "what is ethically correct"
i.e .the negation of ethics with ethics). Its not that self-interest
is wrong but self-interest free of any moral principle is by
definition unethical. Not because the space leprechauns will punish us
but because self-interest free of principles is irrational and self-
destructive. Its a free for all like an animal. Good ethics and
adherence to truth are not chains. It's intended to teach a man to
live a productive and happy life superior to our animal brethren (who
care little for ethics and prefer solely the impulse of desire)
Non-causal
declaration of independence.
Jim Klein
> Its not that self-interest
> is wrong but self-interest free of any moral principle is by
> definition unethical.
Not a bad piece, but I'm not sure how you end up
with this sophist conclusion, at least by your
definition of sophistry. It seems to arrive by
way of, "I believe this, so it is so."
Why not just look at the facts and leave all the
theorizing to all the moochers getting grants? For
if you look at the facts, you'll see the truth is very
closely the opposite of what you believe, specifically...
Moral principle free of self-interest is (by definition,
if you must) oxymoronic. It's not really "by definition"
in the way you mean it, but "by definition" in virtue of
the facts of reality. There is AND CAN BE no meaning
of "moral" outside of the epistemic one created by an
individual. There can be many that are similar and we
could call those a "moral system" maybe, and we can
surely pretend that they arise from something other than
our own minds. Indeed, you yourself do this all the time!
But when all is said and done, they can't. They arise, and
have existence, ONLY in the minds of cognitive individuals.
So the fundamental moral question is this---"Should I use
my mind in order to live, or in order to die?" Or its emotional
corollary--"Should I use my mind in order to be happy, or in
order to suffer?"
Once people figure those toughies out, the rest of the details
will fall into place.
jk
Charles Bell
> Pointing to Rand isn't actually evidence.
Reading something on the subject by Ayn Rand provides the sourcing for
the evidence, or possibly reading something of relevance by a poster
in hpo, which in all these years in hpo I suppose you have never once
done, might provide evidence.
> You still have not provided
> any of evidence that altruism is "evil". Nor have you explained how
> you claim to be against coercion yet on the other hand call a
> voluntary act (altruism) "evil"?
What I said is that engaging in what is altruism [defined as altruism
by Auguste Comte in Système de Politique Positive and imported by John
Stuart Mill ] *and* coercion [as defined by anyone other than you] is
doubly evil. O-bomber in thrusting the country into altruistic war,
and of no other possible description provided by him, is doubly evil
for coercing the American people to wage war for altruism and for no
other reason except an unstated reason to protect French oil
interests.
>
> > An unconstitutional President
>
> Do you have any evidence that Obama is an "unconstitutional
> President"?
He is ineligible according to the requirement that he be a natural
born citizen of the U.S.. He is a citizen by statute on his mother
being a U.S. citizen, but his father not being a U.S. citizen but
rather a U.K. citizen made O-bomber a dual citizen of the U.S. and the
U.K. at birth and subsequently a citizen of both Kenya and the U.S.
until 1984. A natural born citizen, on the other hand, being born to
U.S. citizens in the U.S.A., has no other other national allegiance to
choose from by birth and that was the intent on making the Commander
in Chief a natural born rather than a citizen of another kind.
Moreover, the Constitutional eligibility clause itself makes the
distinction between a natural born and another kind of citizen:
Article II section 1 paragraph 5:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution . . .
. . . in order to protect the possibility that the Founders
themselves, merely citizens and not natural born (to a nation that did
not exist under the Constitution), could be President.
http://www.mindmelding.com/natural_born.htm
which I have posted here in the past. Not that you would notice.
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 24, 11:41 am, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[NC] You can repeat the words but you have little evidence to support
you.
[Bell] This is an Objectivist NG. Deal with it.
As you should as well.
[Bell] And to prove it: this mission is being sold as a humanitarian
mission and for no other reason, and the fact is it is to protect
French and British oil interests.
"This is an Objectivist Newsgroup," to quote your words. Prove it
through objective facts. What's your evidence to support your claim?
I once stated that the occupation of Afghanistan was over oil. I
mentioned that to a friend who asked me where I got that conclusion.
(1) Unocal tried to put a pipeline down to cross Afghanistan. (2) The
Taliban government refused to permit this pipeline. (3) After 9/11 we
invaded Afghanistan and basically threw out the Taliban (although they
were ruthless thugs). (4) The new government signed and agreement to
allow Unocal to put down its pipeline. And the piest-a-resistance:
(5) The placement of U.S. military bases runs lock-step in line with
the pipeline's location. The websites reporting these facts were
independent, established and respected journalistic sites like CNN and
the BBC. While it all may be coincidence it gives a reasonable basis
to presume such a conclusion to be correct.
What's your evidence?
[Bell] If something is sold "for the good of the people" and for no
other reason -- and indeed sold as though *can be* no other reason --
it is only good for the parasites peddling altruism.
While it is possibly arguable it is altruistic - the governments are
spending taxpayer's money for their own purposes - I doubt the African
organizations that agreed to this would do so unless well-bribed or
there was a legitimate reason other than to allow the west to continue
to suck resources out of Africa. Like maybe they're tired of
Ghaddaffi and would like to get rid of him as well.
I don't doubt the potential volatility of oil as a contributing factor
in deciding to do this - it is a strategic resource - but nothing
similar was done in the case of the Iranian people's protests over the
obviously fraudulent election of Aminajad a while back, and if access
to oil was the issue, Iran was a far better target than Libya because
Iran produces much more oil than Libya does.
I mean, I think even Bahrain would have been a better choice if the
calculus was "whose resources can we steal easy," as it has less
military and far fewer resources to have to be attacked or fought off
than Libya's soon-to-be-former government.
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 24, 6:30 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
voluntary act "evil"?
[Bell] An unconstitutional President
We've already gone over this point. A natural-born citizen is one
born in the United States and is subject to the jurisdiction; this is
straight out of the 14th Amendment. There are only two kinds of
citizenship; being a native-born citizen or a naturalized one. If
you're born here, you're native-born. If you're born outside of the
United States, then the status of your parents comes into play as to
whether or not you're natural born.
Unless you can show Hawaii wasn't a state or that when Obama was born
he had diplomatic immunity you're just basically trying to rehash the
ridiculous claims of the Birther movement.
Since Obama was born on American soil the status and citizenship of
Obama's parents are absolutely irrelevant to whether he is a citizen.
They have absolutely no connection. Even if they were both illegal
aliens, he's still an American Citizen, native born and eligible to be
President.
Unless you can find evidence he renounced his citizenship or has been
absent the country during most of the last 7 years prior to the
election, he was eligible to be elected President and is
Constitutionally qualified to hold that office.
Paul Robinson
provided any of evidence that altruism is "evil".
I'll grant Bell's point for the sake of argument subject to conditions
I made before, that if it's your choice and you're not making a
sacrifice it's not altruism, if you do it because it hurts (costs what
you can't afford), you hate the cause, or you're required to whether
or not you agree with it, it is.
[Bell] Nor have you explained how you claim to be against coercion yet
on the other hand call a voluntary act (altruism) "evil"?
The funds used to fight this attack were collected from the public
involuntarily. This form of charity or humanitarian effort is thus
not the voluntary effort of the people who were asked to fund it, it
is involuntary charity by a third party, financed by the involuntary
distraint of taxpayers. Bell may occasionally get some things right;
he lacks the concepts to understand how to properly defend his claims.
[Bell] An unconstitutional President
[NC] Do you have any evidence that Obama is an "unconstitutional
President"?
On that I agree with you; it sounds like Bell is mouthing the words of
the (basically discredited) Birther movement. First they try to claim
copies of Obama's Hawaii birth certificate were forged, as if Obama
would be able to have that done. Then they try to claim his parents
either weren't citizens or weren't here long enough, not realizing
that as long as you're born in the United States and you don't have a
claim to diplomatic immunity you're a native-born citizen and your
parents' citizenship has no relevance to yours. So then they try to
claim he really was born outside the United States...
Paul Robinson
[NC] Thales was the first (known) philosopher to attempt to explain
all of existence in purely natural terms (or at least in the western
sphere). This created an ideological vacuum in ethics though. Prior
to that period actions were justified as right and wrong on the basis
of mystic assertions.
And it still goes on. Masturbate and God will punish you. Or
actually do something bad like murder or rape and God will punish
you. Well, maybe not rape; lots of rapes are included in the Bible
and considered acceptable. Of course, if you don't believe in God
then I guess murder is okay. Or if you think your rape spree or
murder spree is sanctioned by God then it's okay too. You win either
way!
Which reminds me: I once was writing a Tariff schedule and inserted a
line like this. "Operations of equipment shall be carried out in the
usual and customary practices used for masturbation: (1) hide the
appearance of the equipment so as not to scare the public, and (2)
clean up after yourself once you're finished playing around." The
State Corporation Commission didn't think my definition was funny.
[NC] Sophism was unsettling because how was a man supposed to live
then if there was no moral differences between actions?
Well, we know the answer to that: a government of men, not laws, where
your crime (and punishment) isn't based on some stuffy fixed law, but
whether some men think you should be punished, and what your
punishment for what you did was, not whether or not there's some law
to tell if you did something that's a crime, or, in the alternative to
the men choosing whether you committed a crime, whether you paid
enough in the appropriate bribes err I mean contributions to buy your
way out of a conviction.
[NC] However, sophistry has never really gone away entirely. I do not
claim to know the perfect set of ethics but my experience has been a
fair chunk of the people in this world still don't know the
difference between ethics and sophistry.
Here's a good rule of thumb: Ethics: "Here are the reasons why I
believe this to be right or wrong." Sophistry: "I want it [something
they want] because I want it. I don't want it [something they don't
want] because I don't want it." The guy's ethics may be totally
screwed up, but at least he's got a reason for what he does, even if
it is flawed. The other just uses your whims as the deciding factor.
Maybe there ain't much difference between the two but there is some
difference.
The same applies to other's actions. "Here are the reasons why it's
wrong (or permissible) for someone to do something." That's ethics.
"They shouldn't do that because it violates the laws of God (I think
my mother used to use that one to argue against people living together
without having a marriage license). Something is (not) okay just
because it is (or because I say so)." That's sophistry.
[NC] They believe their personal desires are a synonym for ethics.
(i.e. "I want" with "what is ethically correct" i.e .the negation of
ethics with ethics). Its not that self-interest is wrong but self-
interest free of any moral principle is by definition unethical.
It's also a good definition of a sociopath.
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 24, 7:39 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Bell] An unconstitutional President
[NC] Do you have any evidence that Obama is an "unconstitutional
President"?
[Bell] He is ineligible according to the requirement that he be a
natural born citizen of the U.S..
Wrong. He is a natural born citizen - I use the term "native born" by
which I mean the same thing - unless you're going to claim he wasn't
born in Hawaii. End of issue.
[Bell] He is a citizen by statute on his mother being a U.S. citizen,
Actually I should say that is wrong because he is a citizen by the
terms of the 14th Amendment. But you argument alone in and of itself
would be enough, were he born outside of the United States, but that's
completely irrelevant because he was born on American soil and was
subject to its jurisdiction. End of story and end of argument. Any
other criteria is not relevant.
[Bell] but his father not being a U.S. citizen but rather a U.K.
citizen made O-bomber a dual citizen of the U.S. and the U.K. at
birth and subsequently a citizen of both Kenya and the U.S. until
1984.
So you claim. It is completely irrelevant what some other country
might consider is grounds to grant someone citizenship, who whether or
not this is true, it is irrelevant. Some guy is Jewish and born in
New York City. He goes to Israel to visit. By law he is
automatically granted citizenship in Israel. Does that mean he
somehow loses his U.S. Citizenship or can't come back to the U.S. and
run for President? I think not.
The Constitution doesn't consider what other countries consider valid
to also give someone citizenship. The only relevant conditions are
(1) was the person born on United States soil and (2) were they
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? If both those
conditions are true they are automatically a natural-born citizen.
Congress can add to this by making certain other people citizens
because of their family but if the first two are true then one's
family is absolutely irrelevant to their own citizenship.
Try actually reading what the Constitution says, not what some Birther
movement website wants to claim it says. You're acting in exactly the
same manner as when you smear me by saying I'm reading Huffington Post
- which by the way I do not read - or because I would use Wikipedia -
which is often quite accurate, by the way - as a source of facts.
You're using an unreliable website which provides nothing but spin and
conjecture in place of facts and sound reasoning.
Again, you're a hypocrite, Mr. Bell.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 24, 6:45 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 24, 6:30 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [NC] You claim to be again coercion yet on the other hand you call a
> voluntary act "evil"?
>
> [Bell] An unconstitutional President
>
> We've already gone over this point.
And you are found to be incorrect.
> If you're born outside of the
> United States, then the status of your parents comes into play as to
> whether or not you're natural born.
>
If Obama had been born in Kenya to the same parents, he would still be
a U.S. citizen following on the exact same conditions he would follow
being born in Hawaii to those parents (having lived in the U.S. before
his 18th birthday and allowing his Kenyan citizenship to lapse on his
23rd birthday), neither natural born or naturalized -- thus, your
division of all U.S. citizenry into those two categories is manifestly
false. Since 1898 statutory citizenship is conferred on persons born
on U.S. soil to legal aliens, but those citizens are also neither
natural born or naturalized. Natural born citizenship is not conferred
by statute or court order.
spar...@yahoo.ca
> On Mar 25, 12:37 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 24, 6:45 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 24, 6:30 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [NC] You claim to be again coercion yet on the other hand you call a
> > voluntary act "evil"?
>
> > [Bell] An unconstitutional President
>
> > We've already gone over this point.
>
> And you are found to be incorrect.
Are you claiming Obama wasn't born on US soil even thought the
Republican party itself has officially stated the opposite? For
instance are claiming his birth certificate is faked? And if so do you
have evidence to back up the claim?
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
Paul Robinson
> On Mar 25, 12:37 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 24, 6:45 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 24, 6:30 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[NC] You claim to be again coercion yet on the other hand you call a
voluntary act "evil"?
[Bell] An unconstitutional President
[Me] We've already gone over this point.
[Bell] And you are found to be incorrect.
I have not been found to be incorrect, you just claim - without
credible evidence - that it is the case. And my response is: Oh
Really? Prove it.
Show me a court case where it declared a person born within the U.S.
who wasn't a holder of diplomatic immunity did not have native-born
citizenship. The whole point of his parents is absolutely not
relevant.
Make any stupid claims or point to the ignorant tripe of some
birther's website does not change the fact that Mr. Obama was born on
United States soil and did not possess diplomatic immunity. You got
evidence he wasn't born in the U.S. or evidence he held diplomatic
immunity - that is, was not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. -
as a result of his parents being, say, consular officers, then you
have something to argue.
Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out your ass.
Sigh. I've had years of playing ball with Ray Gordon over on
newsgroup alt.seduction.fast, you're less-than-minor league by
comparison.
--
"The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that no
one learns the lessons that history teaches us."
Charles Bell
> On Mar 25, 5:01 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 12:37 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 6:45 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 24, 6:30 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [NC] You claim to be again coercion yet on the other hand you call a
> > > voluntary act "evil"?
>
> > > [Bell] An unconstitutional President
>
> > > We've already gone over this point.
>
> > And you are found to be incorrect.
>
> Are you claiming Obama wasn't born on US soil
What you continue to do in different words is repeat the lie/mistaken
idea, of your first post, that a U.S. President need only be a U.S.
citizen.
Charles Bell
>
> > On Mar 25, 12:37 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 6:45 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 24, 6:30 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [NC] You claim to be again coercion yet on the other hand you call a
> > > voluntary act "evil"?
>
> > > [Bell] An unconstitutional President
>
> > > We've already gone over this point.
>
> > And you are found to be incorrect.
>
> Are you claiming Obama wasn't born on US soil
Sorry, first reply directed to the wrong person. However, the response
is the same: the U.S. President must be a natural born citizen, not a
citizen of another description. If Obama had been born in Kenya to
the same parents and returned to and resident in the U.S. before his
18th birthday and allowed his Kenyan citizenship to lapse at 23 year
of age he would be a citizen of exactly the same description he is
with his current official biography. A natural born citizen is born
to citizens.
Non-causal
> A natural born citizen is born to citizens.
A fair enough point but since you didn't argue against Obama's birth
certificate I'm assuming (until you argue otherwise) you acknowledge
he was born on US soil (which Hawaii was at the time of Obama's
birth). So what seems to be the trust of your argument is what does
"natural born" mean but your definition seems to be in dispute.
According to other US sources a "natural born citizen" is one born on
US soil (versus a citizen not born on US soil).
"In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence
Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that
"[t]here is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the
Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose
parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".
[23] In April 2010 Solum republished the same article as an online
draft, in which he changed his opinion on the meaning of natural born
citizen to include persons born in the United States of one American
citizen parent. In a footnote he explained that "[b]ased on my reading
of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person
born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a
'natural born citizen.'"
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Citizenship_requirements_for_President_of_the_United_States
Note Lawrence Solum says If there is NO credible case in US legal
history of someone being born on American soil with one American
parent not being defined as a "natural born citizen" (I'm assuming by
US court decision) As far as I know that Obama's mother was a US
citizen wasn't she? (born in Wichita, Kansas). Wouldn't that then
qualify Obama as a natural born citizen then?
Or in the alternative. can you provide the names of any American
citizens in US history that were deemed (by a US legal verdict) not
"naturally born" when born to at least one US citizen and born on US
soil?
spar...@yahoo.ca
correct it anyhow (to avoid any confusion)
"According to other US sources a "natural born citizen" is one born on
US soil (versus a citizen not born on US soil)"
.... should have also included AND "born to at least one American
citizen".
Charles Bell
> On Mar 26, 4:53 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > A natural born citizen is born to citizens.
>
> Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that
> "[t]here is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the
> Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose
> parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".
> [23] In April 2010 Solum republished the same article as an online
> draft,
Yes.
>in which he changed his opinion on the meaning of natural born
> citizen to include persons born in the United States of one American
> citizen parent.
No. At one time, prior to female emancipation with full rights, it
would matter that *only* that the father be a citizen. [see the case
of Chester A. Arthur, no one bothered about his U.S. citizen mother's
status, and it was not that he may have been alleged to be born in
Canada, and he was not, but that his father was Irish at the time of
Chester's birth.] Prior to the 1920's the child of a naturalized
citizen male mattered in so far a woman married to that man, the
mother of the child, became naturalized *automatically* by virtue of
marriage if not already a citizen. The interesting thing about full
presentation of O-bomber's birth certificate is that if the father was
"unknown" then according to practice of citizenship rights of the
colonies prior to the Union that child would be accepted as citizen of
that colony by birth, even if most colonies had an oath of citizenship
administered at majority in any case.
> In a footnote he explained that "[b]ased on my reading
> of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person
> born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a
> 'natural born citizen.'"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Citizenship_requiremen...
>
> Note Lawrence Solum says If there is NO credible case in US legal
> history of someone being born on American soil with one American
> parent not being defined as a "natural born citizen" (I'm assuming by
> US court decision)
There is NO legal history of testing of natural born status of a
natural born to a natural born or naturalized mother but also with an
alien father, PERIOD. [see Perkins v. Elg (1939)]
Remark: Wikipedia, typically, mistates in the opening the declaratory
statement facts on this case:
<<Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme
Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to
alien parents is a United States citizen>>
No, not at all.
However,
<<Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the Brooklyn section of New York
City in 1907 to two Swedish parents who had arrived in the United
States some time prior to 1906; her father was naturalized in 1906.>>
Marie Elg was born of a naturalized-citizen father, not alien, and
naturalization law at that time was that an alien wife took the U.S.
citizenship status of her husband.
Marie Elg was a natural born citizen -- the status of which can
neither be given or taken away by a government AS SO DECLARED IN THIS
DECISION -- by virtue of the fact that she was born on U.S. soil to
citizens, and that she was NOT a dual citizen by birth, in spite of
Swedish law, which is not possible for a natural-born citizen, and
that was the intent for that Presidential eligibility.
> As far as I know that Obama's mother was a US
> citizen wasn't she? (born in Wichita, Kansas). Wouldn't that then
> qualify Obama as a natural born citizen then?
>
If Obama had been born in Kenya to the same parents and returned to
and resident in the U.S. before his 18th birthday and allowed his
Kenyan citizenship to lapse at 23 year of age he would be a citizen,
not natural born, of exactly the same description he is with his
current official biography.
THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACT ON ALL THIS IS THAT THIS OUGHT TO HAVE
BEEN DEBATED IN THE SENATE AS WAS THE QUERY ON MCCAIN"S NATURAL BORN
STATUS.
Charles Bell
That is simply in not the case at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution, or the result of Wong Kim Ark decision, or any
subsequent constitutional law in which, if anything, ONLY the
citizenship status of the father mattered. The only conundrum that
might have presented itself is if O-bomber's parental status had been
reversed in gender, that his mother was alien and father a natural
born.
Non-causal
> On Mar 26, 11:41 am, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 26, 4:53 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > A natural born citizen is born to citizens.
>
> > "In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence
> > Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that
> > "[t]here is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the
> > Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose
> > parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".
> > [23] In April 2010 Solum republished the same article as an online
> > draft,
>
> Yes.
>
> >in which he changed his opinion on the meaning of natural born
> > citizen to include persons born in the United States of one American
> > citizen parent.
>
> No. At one time, prior to female emancipation with full rights, it
> would matter that *only* that the father be a citizen. [see the case
> of Chester A. Arthur,
Chester A. Arthur became a President of the US so that isn't evidence
con.
> If Obama had been born in Kenya
Are you claiming Obama was born in Kenya?
> There is NO legal history of testing of natural born status of a natural born to a natural born or naturalized mother
Doesn't it seem like an odd coincidence that some should attempt to
use the current President as the first case after 200 plus years of
history?
> but also with an alien father, PERIOD. if anything, ONLY the citizenship status of the father mattere
In the early US women didn't have equal rights. Women couldn't even
vote. Today such a provision discriminating on sex would be viewed as
a rights violation and wouldn't stand a chance of being upheld in any
court of law. Do you believe that laws singling out specifically woman
from being President are legitimate?
Charles Bell
> On Mar 26, 3:42 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 11:41 am, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 4:53 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > A natural born citizen is born to citizens.
>
> > > "In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence
> > > Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that
> > > "[t]here is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the
> > > Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose
> > > parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".
> > > [23] In April 2010 Solum republished the same article as an online
> > > draft,
>
> > Yes.
>
> > >in which he changed his opinion on the meaning of natural born
> > > citizen to include persons born in the United States of one American
> > > citizen parent.
>
> > No. At one time, prior to female emancipation with full rights, it
> > would matter that *only* that the father be a citizen. [see the case
> > of Chester A. Arthur,
>
> Chester A. Arthur became a President of the US so that isn't evidence
> con.
>
He became President on succeeding Garfield and even though the same
requirement is implicit for Vice President {he was nominated somewhat
capriously to balance the ticket}, it was an BIG issue when he became
President and he did not run for President. He was born in New
Hampshire to a U.S-citizen mother and an Irish-Canadian father who had
not been naturalized until 14 years after Chester Arthur's birth.
Vice-president Arthur lied about and obfusacted his family history
even though much of the issue was then raised about *where* he was
born rather than on the nationality of his father. For example, he
said his mother had never left New England even though she had met and
married his father in Canada and gave birth to his brother there.
I believe Obama & Co. are deliberately running against presenting his
birth certificate in order to keep that red herring going past 2012.
> > If Obama had been born in Kenya
>
> Are you claiming Obama was born in Kenya?
"If Obama had been born in Kenya. . ." Are you familar enough with
the subjunctive mood in English?
>
> > There is NO legal history of testing of natural born status of a natural born to a natural born or naturalized mother
>
> Doesn't it seem like an odd coincidence that some should attempt to
> use the current President as the first case after 200 plus years of
> history?
>
Chester A. Arthur. And the issue was RAISED AGAINST AND SETTLED FOR
MCCAIN.
> > but also with an alien father, PERIOD. if anything, ONLY the citizenship status of the father mattere
>
> In the early US women didn't have equal rights.
If the people want to change the eligibility requirements for the
Presidency they can do it through Constitutional Amendment.
Non-causal
> > Are you claiming Obama was born in Kenya?
>
> "If Obama had been born in Kenya. . ." Are you familar enough with
> the subjunctive mood in English?
Phrasing it the way you have doesn't necessarily mean someone believes
he wasn't. Let me ask again a different way. Do you believe Obama was
born on US soil? A yes or no answer will suffice..
> > > There is NO legal history of testing of natural born status of a natural born to a natural born or naturalized mother
>
> > Doesn't it seem like an odd coincidence that some should attempt to
> > use the current President as the first case after 200 plus years of
> > history?
>
> Chester A. Arthur. And the issue was RAISED AGAINST AND SETTLED FOR
> MCCAIN.
Again Mr. Arthur was still allowed to be President and McCain also
still ran) And didn't the Republic party itself already agree Obama
qualified as President? (including Bush, McCain, Palin and other key
leadership I believe). Whom exactly suggests he is an unconstitutional
President? Are their any current open court cases on the matter?
> > > but also with an alien father, PERIOD. if anything, ONLY the citizenship status of the father mattere
>
> > In the early US women didn't have equal rights.
>
> If the people want to change the eligibility requirements for the
> Presidency they can do it through Constitutional Amendment.
I suppose someone could certainly try taking the issue to the supreme
court (that only citizen fathers would qualify a candidate) but my
guess is they would lose by unanimous decision. Such a definition of
"naturalized" would implicitly discriminate on the basis of sex. It
would be little different than claiming only having a citizen mother
would qualify someone as President.
Or do you believe men should have some special rights in the US
legislature that woman shouldn't have?
Charles Bell
> On Mar 26, 7:38 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Are you claiming Obama was born in Kenya?
>
> > "If Obama had been born in Kenya. . ." Are you familar enough with
> > the subjunctive mood in English?
>
> Phrasing it the way you have doesn't necessarily mean someone believes
> he wasn't.
Yes, that was the point of phrasing it that way. It does not actually
matter if one believes it to be true or not. O-bomber is deceptive and
of fraudulant character and well within the capability of such a
thing, but either way it does not matter, and if anything the
"birther" argument exclusively held around his place of birth is a red
herring and also well within the capability of such a man. Whether O-
bomber had been born in another country or had had been born in the
U.S., his status as one who is not natural born citizen is the same,
for the salient issue to the Founders was that he can hold dual
allegiances, and in that, the Founders were weirdly prescient
> Let me ask again a different way. Do you believe Obama was
> born on US soil? A yes or no answer will suffice..
>
> > > > There is NO legal history of testing of natural born status of a natural born to a natural born or naturalized mother
>
> > > Doesn't it seem like an odd coincidence that some should attempt to
> > > use the current President as the first case after 200 plus years of
> > > history?
>
> > Chester A. Arthur. And the issue was RAISED AGAINST AND SETTLED FOR
> > MCCAIN.
>
> Again Mr. Arthur was still allowed to be President and McCain also
> still ran)
It makes the matter nonetheless unconsitutional. That you are saying
there was an unconsciouable double standard commited by the same
Senate that cannot give us an annual budget but gave us an
unconstituional health care legislation is to agree with me. Also your
implication that in 200 years no such issue arose is patently false
over the Arthur Presidency (who subsequently never ran for President)
and in that I remember that Barry Goldwater was challenged as Arizona
being a territory at the time of his birth, It was openly debated and
settled, as was the McCain issue of having being born in Panama to
parents stationed there. O-bomber's challenge is greeted with
scurrilous rebuke and insults on one's racism alleged in the face of
no evidence.
> I suppose someone could certainly try taking the issue to the supreme
> court
For once the federal courts, and by implication the Supreme Court in
Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State,
has done the right thing and stayed out of the matter over which it
has no constitutional jurisdiction. The final say on the
certification of the Presidency, having left the Electors, is the
Senate.
Non-causal
> > Let me ask again a different way. Do you believe Obama was
> > born on US soil? A yes or no answer will suffice..
>
> > > > > There is NO legal history of testing of natural born status of a natural born to a natural born or naturalized mother
You answered a different question. Did you believe Obama was born on
US soil? Yes or no please.,
> > I suppose someone could certainly try taking the issue to the supreme
> > court
>
> For once the federal courts, and by implication the Supreme Court in
> Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State,
> has done the right thing and stayed out of the matter over which it
> has no constitutional jurisdiction. The final say on the
> certification of the Presidency, having left the Electors, is the
> Senate.
So you're saying there is no court challenge. OK. Has anyone in the
Senate opened any hearings into the constitutionality of his
presidency?
And back to my other question, Do you ultimately believe men should
have some special rights when running for President that woman
shouldn't have? (i.e. that a fathers citizenship status should make
one eligible whereas a mother's citizenship status shouldn't?)
Charles Bell
> So you're saying there is no court challenge.
Yes, there have been court challenges, generally not accepted to
proceed due to lack of standing. As I said, the courts do not want to
deal with this issue, and rightly so.
> OK. Has anyone in the
> Senate opened any hearings into the constitutionality of his
> presidency?
>
No.
spar...@yahoo.ca
1. Did you believe Obama was born on US soil? Yes or no?
2. Do you ultimately believe men should have some special rights when
Charles Bell
> Again you brushed over two key questions.
>
> 1. Did you believe Obama was born on US soil? Yes or no?
>
Did you stop beating your wife? Yes or no?
> 2. Do you ultimately believe men should have some special rights when
> running for President that woman
> shouldn't have? (i.e. that a fathers citizenship status should make
> one eligible whereas a mother's citizenship status shouldn't?)
Did your mother become a whore only to pay your psychiatric fees? Yes
or no?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
If Obama had been born in Kenya to Obama, Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham
Obama, returned to and resided in the U.S. before his 18th birthday
and allowed his Kenyan citizenship lapse on his 23rd birthday, his
U.S. citizen status would be legally the same as his having been born
in Hawaii to Obama, Sr. and Ann Obama.
Senator John Bingham (1866):
I find no fault with the introductory clause [of the Civil Rights Act
of 1866] which is simply declaratory of what is written in the
Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of
the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign
sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural
born citizen.
"Not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty" Both parents had to
be US citizens, neither could be a non-US citizen.
Do you understand? Yes or no?
Non-causal
mother a "whore"? Does that really seem like rational human behavior
to you?
Why do you needlessly lash out at so many people Charles? What you
frame as "self-interest" appears to be the opposite sometimes. How
does being rude with so many people benefit your interests? Even on
an Oist forum, you manage to alienate everyone with some sort of
uncontrollable anger issue. In all seriousness I feel little sorry
for you and would highly recommend visiting some sort of accredited
therapist to deal with your anger. Its not healthy human behavior to
always be angry. (and destructive not only to those around you but
even yourself)
Charles Bell
> In response to two questions you claim I beat my wife and call my
> mother a "whore"?
I''ll answer all your fallacious question when you answer these two.
Meanwhile,
Paul Robinson
citizens in US history that were deemed (by a US legal verdict) not
"naturally born" when born to at least one US citizen and born on US
soil?
Ding-Dong Bell is just blowing smoke out his ass because he read
something on some birther website because for some strange reason he
has this terrible hatred of Obama and wishes he wasn't there in the
White House.
This whole issue has been a settled point for decades, I remember
reading about the point made that some women would cross the border
into the U.S., legally or illegally, and have a baby in a U.S.
hospital. They'd take the baby and its birth certificate back with
them, then when the child was old enough it could legally walk right
across the border because it has a birth certificate indicating it is
an American Citizen, on the same standing as anyone else who was born
here. (The child might also have Mexican citizenship because its
parents were Mexican nationals.)
Some people use the perjorative term "Anchor Babies" because their
family is then eligible to emigrate having a relative who is a
citizen.
Now, I've heard some people argue in the other direction, but until
some court case comes up where someone who was born in the U.S. tries
to raise the issue that they are a citizen and someone is able to
successfully argue to an appeals court that they are not and the
Supreme Court decides this to be the case, the issue is moot.
Unless and until the issue comes up in a court case and a court finds
a person born in the U.S. is not a citizen based on the citizenship of
their parents it really doesn't matter.
This was settled by the last paragraph of United States v. Wong Kim
Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898):
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of
this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the
parties were to present for determination the single question stated
at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the
United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his
birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent
domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on
business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity
under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen
of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of
opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
Some say this doesn't apply because a different decision was made in
the (reprehensible) Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), except
for one small thing. Wong Kim Ark was decided *after* the Slaughter-
House Cases, so to the extent {Ark} is different from {Slaughterhouse}
it over-rides it.
The same conclusion was given in Woodworth, "Who are citizens of the
United States?", 32 American Law Review 554, St Louis: Review
Publishing Co., 1898. Which says basically the same thing: {U.S. v.
Wong Kim Ark} has basically settled the issue that there are only two
types of citizenship: citizenship by birth, and citizenship by
nationalization, and the 14th Amendment means what it says, if you are
simply subject to the jurisdiction of the State, you are a citizen by
birth if you are born in the U.S.
Congress can create an immigration law to clarify the status of
children born outside the U.S. to American Citizens, and thus grant
them citizenship, but it has no power to take it away from someone
born here.
They also ignore Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), which refers back
to {U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark} as basically still being good law.
So as recently as 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court has said the same thing
that was said in 1898: a person born in the United States (unless they
have diplomatic immunity or are otherwise not subject to the
jurisdiction of the laws of the United States) is a citizen by birth.
Charles Bell
> Unless and until the issue comes up in a court case and a court finds
> a person born in the U.S. is not a citizen based on the citizenship of
> their parents it really doesn't matter.
>
Presidential eligibility requirements are such that a person be a
natural born citizen; namely, that he be a citizen born of citizens.
> This was settled by the last paragraph of United States v. Wong Kim
> Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898):
>
The Wong Kim Ark decision invalidated the Chinese Exclusion Act in
which children of legally resident aliens (of any ethnicity), who were
forbidden by law to be nationalized, born on U.S. soil could be U.S.
citizens. It settled nothing, nor could it logically settle anything
which was never at issue, concerning Article II Presidential
eligibility requirements that a person be born of citizens.