OBAMA AT HALFTIME
Boris Kapusta
Frank
>
> Epic FAIL
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaRCq9eXKw
>
They're still out there
Boris Kapusta
OMG!
Edward A. Falk
Boris Kapusta <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote:
>
>Epic FAIL
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaRCq9eXKw
As usual, the complaint is that he's not cleaning up Bush's mess
fast enough.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
LibtardFilth
"Boris Kapusta" <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote in message
news:8ejim692f417nfmnj...@4ax.com...
>
> Epic FAIL
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaRCq9eXKw
>
Epic SUCCESS! Obama has succeeded in EVERY goal that he ever had...to get elected!
And to that end he campaigned on every issue that would get votes. As a community
agitator, he knew the buttons to push and what to say. (or write on the teleprompter)
As President, he's kinda' like a twelve year old kid that inherits a huge business and
thinks he's going to run it. He knows nothing about leading, nothing about business
and nothing about morals. Al he DOES know is lust for power.
There are more people unemployed and underemployed than ever before in the US,
crushing debt and we'll soon be enjoying the highest food and energy prices ever and
the US is now a third-world country that has destroyed most of it's wealth creation.
Liberals just don't get it and never will. They can't comprehend that "as goes wealth
creation, so goes America". They think that if only they could take more money from
those that earn it and spread SOME of it among the unproductive for votes (and keep
some for themselves) that Utopia will magically appear instead of working harder,
learning more, being creative and creating wealth. Class warfare, class envy,
victimhood, unearned entitlements and such are the liberals' weapons but what can they
achieve other than destruction of the country? Is that their goal? Liberals say the
US is evil and since they form their morals around their agenda...thus the election of
Obama-types. BUT, it seems that America doesn't like the liberal agenda after all.
We live in interesting times.
Boris Kapusta
Falk) wrote:
>In article <8ejim692f417nfmnj...@4ax.com>,
>Boris Kapusta <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote:
>>
>>Epic FAIL
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaRCq9eXKw
>
>As usual, the complaint is that he's not cleaning up Bush's mess
>fast enough.
So you admit Obama is a failure and no better than Bush. Noted.
Edward A. Falk
Boris Kapusta <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote:
>>As usual, the complaint is that he's not cleaning up Bush's mess
>>fast enough.
>
>So you admit Obama is a failure and no better than Bush. Noted.
No, I admit that he's not as *much* better than Bush as I'd hoped.
He's still a vast improvement.
Boris Kapusta
Falk) wrote:
>In article <gbcjm6dgt71e2li8e...@4ax.com>,
>Boris Kapusta <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote:
>
>>>As usual, the complaint is that he's not cleaning up Bush's mess
>>>fast enough.
>>
>>So you admit Obama is a failure and no better than Bush. Noted.
>
>No, I admit that he's not as *much* better than Bush as I'd hoped.
>He's still a vast improvement.
In what way, spending money?
Tom Gardner
"Edward A. Falk" <fa...@rahul.net> wrote in message news:ikcbof$2t2$2...@blue.rahul.net...
In what way?
Boris Kapusta
In crack pipe smoking.
deepdudu
Falk) wrote:
>In article <gbcjm6dgt71e2li8e...@4ax.com>,
>Boris Kapusta <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote:
>
>>>As usual, the complaint is that he's not cleaning up Bush's mess
>>>fast enough.
>>
>>So you admit Obama is a failure and no better than Bush. Noted.
>
>No, I admit that he's not as *much* better than Bush as I'd hoped.
>He's still a vast improvement.
Agreed. I'll have to admit I'm a bit disappointed in Obama's progress,
but when you get nothing but a triple decker shit sandwich handed to
you it takes awhile to get it all down.
Boris Kapusta
Enjoy your shit sandwich. Wipe your chin, you're attracting flies.
F. George McDuffee
================
One major problem seems to be that Barrack Obama was elected
president, not so much because he was Barrack Obama offering
a new/fair/square deal, but because he was not John McCain
offering Bush III. What most of the voters did not
anticipate was that while they did indeed avoid Bush III,
they were going to get Carter II.
It is correctly observed that one sure road to failure is to
try to please everyone.
IMNSHO the Obama administration has failed on [or failed to
pursue] several tasks critical to the continuation of the
nation/economy/society as we know it, but which are highly
distasteful/repugnant to significant power blocs and
campaign contributors. These tasks include but are not
limited to:
(1) Breaking up the leviathan financial organizations that
were too big to fail in 2008 requiring massive continuing
taxpayer bailouts, which are even bigger now. This includes
the banks, brokerages, and quasi/para banks such as the
money market funds and GE Capital, and the GSEs such as
Freddy and Fannie.
(2) Bringing all the national/interstate organizations that
act as banks under banking regulation. If these are to
receive the benefits of government insurance/bailouts, then
they must accept government regulation and pay their fair
share of the insurance costs such as FDIC.
(3) Shutting down existing [and preventing any new]
colonial wars with unsustainable costs of not only money but
also domestic military preparedness and human lives on both
sides, and the return of all US armed forces to US
territory, with the fortification of the southern border.
The size of the military establishment must be significantly
reduced, and the acquisition of gold plated (if not solid
gold) weapons systems must stop, and the money made
available used to rebuild and re-equip a [much] smaller
military with appropriate and needed supplies and
capabilities. The US cannot continue to spend more on arms
that the rest of the world combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/u-s-military-spending-is-out-of-control-12-facts-that-show-that-we-cannot-afford-to-be-the-police-of-the-world
(4) As indicated in other postings, establishment of viable
alternative domestic fuel/energy sources, possibly on the
TVA model, sufficient to avoid catastrophe in the event of a
serious reduction of petroleum imports. At a minimum this
should include the construction and operation of coal
liquefaction plants, possibly under military control with
the understanding that the output of these plants will be
the emergency/contingency liquid fuel supplies for the
military. A large expansion of non-food based bio-fuel
technology and production, and the production of
standardized salt cooled thorium fueled reactors in moderate
sizes. Much of the power output from the thorium reactors
in the form of high-pressure steam and heat can be used for
coal liquefaction, and for desalinization of seawater for
increased irrigation to enhance domestic food production.
It should be noted that if significant food shortages are to
be avoided much of the bio-fuels and coal based liquid fuels
produced must be used in domestic agriculture, which is now
highly mechanized and automated. Petroleum is also a
feedstock for many of our more important domestic industries
such as chemicals/plastics and pharmaceuticals.
There are of course many additional critical tasks, but
IMNSHO these seem the most pressing and immediately
dangerous.
-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Jeff M
Too bad such clear thinking seems to be absent in Washington, D.C.
Hawke
>>>> As usual, the complaint is that he's not cleaning up Bush's mess
>>>> fast enough.
>>>
>>> So you admit Obama is a failure and no better than Bush. Noted.
>>
>> No, I admit that he's not as *much* better than Bush as I'd hoped.
>> He's still a vast improvement.
>
> Agreed. I'll have to admit I'm a bit disappointed in Obama's progress,
> but when you get nothing but a triple decker shit sandwich handed to
> you it takes awhile to get it all down.
Try explaining that to a right winger.
Hawke
Hawke
It's easy to see why you are disappointed. You misunderstand the level
of power held by the president and how much power is in other hands. I
am in complete agreement with you in your assessment of what needs to be
done. Where I disagree is in thinking it's in Obama's power to
accomplish it. To do what we would like done it would mean overcoming
the power of deeply entrenched and powerful forces that the president
has no control over. In the first place, the republicans and their
wealthy backers oppose everything on your list. With that kind of
opposition and with the House in republican hands, how is Obama supposed
to change anything? In some regards the president is the most powerful
man in the world. In other ways he's very limited. I'm pretty sure that
Obama would agree with us about your listed items. But he's stymied as
much as we are. Seeing the limitations on what Obama can accomplish
should be an eye opener as to what is wrong with the country. When even
the president can't overcome entrenched interests who will do anything
to maintain the status quo, you can see why change just ain't happenin'.
Obama is doing all he can but his opposition is actually more powerful
than he is. He can start a war but he can't make the republicans do
what's right. No one can, and that's what's holding thing up.
Hawke
dca...@krl.org
He can start a war but he can't make the republicans do
> what's right. No one can, and that's what's holding thing up.
>
> Hawke
Wrong!!!!
From Wikipedia
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution,
sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress
the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:
[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of
Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and
Water;
For a major in Poly Sci, you do not seem to have a clear grasp of the
Constitution.
Dan
rangerssuck
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President can commit
troops if the US is under serious threat. He must notify Congress
within 48 hours, and troops must begin withdrawal within 60 days and
complete withdrawal within 30 days after that.
That's not a formal declaration of war, but Hawke didn't say anything
about declaration. He said *start* a war, and the war powers
resolution comes pretty damned close to that, in my book.
Ed Huntress
"rangerssuck" <range...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab98b212-295d-4d7d...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
And before the WPR, the president could commit troops for as long as he
liked. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents the president from
conducting war -- just declaring it.
--
Ed Huntress
deepdudu
Um Bush started two wars without a Congressional declaration of war,
so I guess your rule doesn't apply to Republicans?
> Dan
>
>
Rich Grise
> On Mar 1, 4:53 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 3:50 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>> He can start a war but he can't make the republicans do
>>
>> > what's right. No one can, and that's what's holding thing up.
>>
>>
>> From Wikipedia
>>
>> Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution,
>> sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress
>> the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:
>>
>> [Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of
>> Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and
>> Water;
>>
>> For a major in Poly Sci, you do not seem to have a clear grasp of the
>> Constitution.
>
> troops if the US is under serious threat. He must notify Congress
> within 48 hours, and troops must begin withdrawal within 60 days and
> complete withdrawal within 30 days after that.
>
> That's not a formal declaration of war, but Hawke didn't say anything
> about declaration. He said *start* a war, and the war powers
> resolution comes pretty damned close to that, in my book.
It's been an awfully long "60 days" in Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan. >:-[
Thanks,
Rich
dca...@krl.org
>
> Um Bush started two wars without a Congressional declaration of war,
> so I guess your rule doesn't apply to Republicans?
>
Maybe, but try looking at
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm
Dan
Shall not be infringed
So when I write a check for a new car I didn't really buy in to it?
Edward A. Falk
dca...@krl.org <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>
> [Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of
>Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and
>Water;
When was the last time we bothered declaring war?
dca...@krl.org
> When was the last time we bothered declaring war?
>
> --
> -Ed Falk, f...@despams.r.us.com
Ask Hillary if the Iraq war resolution was a declaration of war. She
voted for the resolution.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...............
Dan
Strabo
Of course not because the Constitution is a negative document. The
Constitution must authorize power before it is constitutional and
thus *negates all use of power not authorized*.
There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the president
to start a war. In fact, the president is not commander-in-chief
unless there is a war declared by Congress.
Strabo
Yes it does apply. Of course, most of those identifying themselves
as Republicans are Neocons and Neocons are disguised Liberals. Yes,
George Bush is a Liberal of the hawkish variety.
The fact is that federal government operates contrary to the Constitution.
Ed Huntress
"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:NSybp.15779$%M7...@newsfe21.iad...
Putting aside your erroneous point on this, I direct you to Article II,
Section 2:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
the actual Service of the United States."
He commands them, he calls them into service -- as Washington did in 1794.
>
> There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the president
> to start a war. In fact, the president is not commander-in-chief
> unless there is a war declared by Congress.
See above.
--
Ed Huntress
deepdudu
wrote:
>>>
>>> Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution,
>>> sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress
>>> the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:
>>>
>>> [Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of
>>> Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and
>>> Water;
>>>
>>>
>>> For a major in Poly Sci, you do not seem to have a clear grasp of the
>>> Constitution.
>>>
>> Um Bush started two wars without a Congressional declaration of war,
>> so I guess your rule doesn't apply to Republicans?
>>
>
>Yes it does apply. Of course, most of those identifying themselves
>as Republicans are Neocons and Neocons are disguised Liberals. Yes,
>George Bush is a Liberal of the hawkish variety.
Oh horseshit. You're probably one of those conservatives who think
that conservatism is defined by smaller government and greater
individual liberty when nothing is further from the truth: that is
libertarianism. And liberalism is NOT defined by totalitarianism.
You've been brainwashed.
>
>The fact is that federal government operates contrary to the Constitution.
>
No much disagreement there. Biggest mistake ever was giving wealthy
private bankers total control over our money supply.
Strabo
The Whiskey Rebellion
An example of presidential temperance but not a good example
of the Constitutional use of troops. It was too soon after ratification
as not everyone agreed on detail and protocol. Nevertheless it did set
the stage.
1. There was no war and thus no declaration of war. Washington was not
"Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of
the militia of several states." The continental army was not called.
The NAvy did not set sail. Instead a militia was sent.
2. A lot legal finagling and negotiation concerning the booze tax
occurred from 1791 onward. Washington's actions were at the behest
of Congress.
"Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required that a
justice of the United States Supreme Court *certify* that law
enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities."
- Wiki
Therein is your declarative mandate.
Having heeded the above Act, in 1794 Washington then issued a
presidential proclamation and called upon the militia to suppress the
rebellion.
------------------------------
To the issue of war...
"The president shall be Commander...when [the militia, army, etc.]
[is] called into the actual Service of the United States [by Congress
declaring war]."
He commands ONLY as commander-in-chief when war is declared by Congress
though provisions exist for taking emergency action to be followed up
by Congressional action.
Ed Huntress
Your re-writes of the Constitition and law are always interesting, Strabo,
if only as a window into the curious workings of your mind. d8-)
Here's the fact: The Constitution says that the president is
commander-in-chief of the militia when he calls them into federal service.
He called roughly 16,000 state militiamen into federal service in 1794,
under the Militia Act, and he commanded them. That's what I said.
No war must be declared. As for what authority he needs, if it's an
insurrection within a state, there are several ways he can get authority to
call the militia. But the president decides when and if to send them into a
conflict. If it's an invasion from a foreign country or attack by an Indian
tribe, he doesn't need any other authority.
But the issue in question was not actually the militia. I just used that
example because it reflects the president's authority under Article II,
Section 2 of the Constitution.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> To the issue of war...
>
>
> "The president shall be Commander...when [the militia, army, etc.]
> [is] called into the actual Service of the United States [by Congress
> declaring war]."
>
> He commands ONLY as commander-in-chief when war is declared by Congress
> though provisions exist for taking emergency action to be followed up
> by Congressional action.
You've inverted and be-bracketed the words of the Constitution to imply
something that they don't say. The Army and the Navy are ALWAYS in actual
service of the United States, war or not. The reference to actual service
applies ONLY to the militia.
If you hadn't twisted the sentence around, your error would be clear. Here's
the actual sentence again:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
the actual Service of the United States..."
The "when called into the actual Service" refers to the militia, which are
otherwise in the service of the states. That's what that was all about.
As you know, until the WPR of 1973, the president's authority to send troops
into foreign wars was often questioned, but never overturned. Even where the
president's power under Art. II Sec. 2 has been overturned by the USSC
(Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer, 1952), the Justices have been careful
to reaffirm the president's authority over the military itself.
Now, as a result of the WPR and further legislation under Bush II, the terms
of authority are more clearly defined. But Art. II itself, like the Second
Amendment, was non-specific and the powers assumed by the president to send
troops into foreign conflict was never prevented before then.
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
The thing is that I know what I am talking about and it's you that is
dabbling in an area where you have limitations. You're under the
misunderstanding of what the modern president's war powers actually are.
To know that you have to look at the "War Powers Act", not the
constitution. If you reread what I wrote what I said was the president
has the power to "start" a war. According to the war powers act he can.
The old fashioned way was for the U.S. to ask congress to declare war
before we could begin hostilities. As our last 100 years has shown, we
have not declared war on anyone except for the first and second world
wars and we've been in a lot of wars besides those. The president is
able to start a war just about anytime he wants. Bush was able to start
the war in Iraq. He went through the legal motions to do it but it was a
foregone conclusion that he was going to get us into the war one way or
another. This is something a president has the power to do. The
president doesn't simply have to fool the congress into giving him
authority to attack another country either. The war powers act gives him
at least 30 days to send the military anywhere anytime he wants. So,
what I said is a fact. The president can start a war any time he wants.
But he can't make his opposition go along with him no matter how much he
wants them to. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
Hawke
F. George McDuffee
==========
While the president does require the cooperation of
Congress, and indeed SCOTUS, to implement items 1,2, and 4
above, because he is constitutionally the commander in chief
of the armed forces, which are under civilian control, he
can implement at least item #3, the withdrawal from Iraq and
Afghanistan, and prevent any more foreign adventures during
his term. For clarification on this point contact General
McCrystal (Ret)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37866754/ns/us_news-military/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal
While I am not an expert in logistics or retrograde
movements, one possible method is to divide Iraq/Afghanistan
into a large number of operational areas, c 100-250 each,
and assign each operational area a status code, possibly
X = full operations allowed
Y = aerial observation only, with drone strikes only with
commander approval
Z = no observation and no drone strikes, no operations of
any kind allowed. [As in "I'm outa'here']
The zones should have their perimeters established by a
series of meets and bounds, preferably road junctions or
terrain features, but not inhabited areas to avoid the
inclusive/exclusive ambiguity of large area limit points.
Over a period of 6 to 12 months, to allow evacuation of
allied equipment and personnel, the status code of each
operational area can be progressed from X -> Y -> Z, with
strict oversight and monitoring to prevent the creation of
any salient or isolated garrisons, i.e. an American Dein
Bien Phu, the imminent loss of which would demand "relief"
and/or retaliation by American forces.
http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-dien-bien-phu.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu
Most likely it will be necessary to issue a presidential
directive reducing the total number of in-country troops and
TOE equipment as the number of operational areas with status
codes of Y or Z increase to prevent excessive concentrations
in the remaing areas with the ensuing supply and evacuation
problems.
It would be nice to appropriate a large sum of money for the
victory parades for troops, e.g. lots of medals, steak
dinners, etc., when these return home, before they are
either demobilized or stationed along the US southern
border.
Too_Many_Tools
> "Boris Kapusta" <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote in message
>
> news:8ejim692f417nfmnj...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > Epic FAIL
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaRCq9eXKw
>
> Epic SUCCESS! Obama has succeeded in EVERY goal that he ever had...to get elected!
>
> And to that end he campaigned on every issue that would get votes. As a community
> agitator, he knew the buttons to push and what to say. (or write on the teleprompter)
> As President, he's kinda' like a twelve year old kid that inherits a huge business and
> thinks he's going to run it. He knows nothing about leading, nothing about business
> and nothing about morals. Al he DOES know is lust for power.
>
> There are more people unemployed and underemployed than ever before in the US,
> crushing debt and we'll soon be enjoying the highest food and energy prices ever and
> the US is now a third-world country that has destroyed most of it's wealth creation.
> Liberals just don't get it and never will. They can't comprehend that "as goes wealth
> creation, so goes America". They think that if only they could take more money from
> those that earn it and spread SOME of it among the unproductive for votes (and keep
> some for themselves) that Utopia will magically appear instead of working harder,
> learning more, being creative and creating wealth. Class warfare, class envy,
> victimhood, unearned entitlements and such are the liberals' weapons but what can they
> achieve other than destruction of the country? Is that their goal? Liberals say the
> US is evil and since they form their morals around their agenda...thus the election of
> Obama-types. BUT, it seems that America doesn't like the liberal agenda after all.
> We live in interesting times.
Yes we do...the post-Bush years.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:14:33 +0000 (UTC), f...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>
> Falk) wrote:
> >In article <8ejim692f417nfmnjjrhejrg2q7omia...@4ax.com>,
> >Boris Kapusta <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote:
>
> >>Epic FAIL
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaRCq9eXKw
>
> >As usual, the complaint is that he's not cleaning up Bush's mess
> >fast enough.
>
> So you admit Obama is a failure and no better than Bush. Noted.
Hmm..that sounds just like what Gunner would say. ;<)
How is the job search going...Gunner? ;<)))
TMT
Boris Kapusta
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 26, 2:17 pm, "LibtardFilth" <bsw@lnns> wrote:
>> "Boris Kapusta" <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote in message
>>
>> Queers are still living in their mommys' basements?
>
>Yes we do...the post-Bush years.
>
>TMT
Poor baby.
Too_Many_Tools
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:09:19 +0000 (UTC), f...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>
> Falk) wrote:
> >In article <gbcjm6dgt71e2li8eig1f8mu3m67c4c...@4ax.com>,
> >Boris Kapusta <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote:
>
> >>>As usual, the complaint is that he's not cleaning up Bush's mess
> >>>fast enough.
>
> >>So you admit Obama is a failure and no better than Bush. Noted.
>
> >He's still a vast improvement.
>
> Agreed. I'll have to admit I'm a bit disappointed in Obama's progress,
> but when you get nothing but a triple decker shit sandwich handed to
> you it takes awhile to get it all down.
I think Obama is doing very well...consider what he had to deal with.
Compare where we are now to where we were.
Also compare where we are now to where the Country was in the last
Great Depression in the same timeline.
When the previous resident of the White House leaves the Country in
the terrible shape it was, it takes time and money to fix the
problems.
I find it very humorous that conservatives never discuss why Bush did
not fix his problems before he left office.
Obama will be reelected in 2012.
And conservatives will continue to disown their part in the mult
National disasters they created.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:37:29 -0700, Deep Dudu wrote:
> >On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:09:19 +0000 (UTC), f...@rahul.net (Edward A.
> >Falk) wrote:
>
> >>In article <gbcjm6dgt71e2li8eig1f8mu3m67c4c...@4ax.com>,
> >>Boris Kapusta <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote:
>
> >>>>As usual, the complaint is that he's not cleaning up Bush's mess
> >>>>fast enough.
>
> >>>So you admit Obama is a failure and no better than Bush. Noted.
>
> >>No, I admit that he's not as *much* better than Bush as I'd hoped.
> >>He's still a vast improvement.
>
> >Agreed. I'll have to admit I'm a bit disappointed in Obama's progress,
> >but when you get nothing but a triple decker shit sandwich handed to
> >you it takes awhile to get it all down.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
On the subject shit sandwiches, how far is your cheese check going
these days Gummer?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
associates.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:37:29 -0700, Deep Dudu wrote:
> >On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:09:19 +0000 (UTC), f...@rahul.net (Edward A.
> >Falk) wrote:
>
> >>In article <gbcjm6dgt71e2li8eig1f8mu3m67c4c...@4ax.com>,
> >>Boris Kapusta <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote:
>
> >>>>As usual, the complaint is that he's not cleaning up Bush's mess
> >>>>fast enough.
>
> >>>So you admit Obama is a failure and no better than Bush. Noted.
>
> >>No, I admit that he's not as *much* better than Bush as I'd hoped.
> >>He's still a vast improvement.
>
> >Agreed. I'll have to admit I'm a bit disappointed in Obama's progress,
> >but when you get nothing but a triple decker shit sandwich handed to
> >you it takes awhile to get it all down.
>
>
> (4) As indicated in other postings, establishment of viable
> alternative domestic fuel/energy sources, possibly on the
> TVA model, sufficient to avoid catastrophe in the event of a
> serious reduction of petroleum imports. At a minimum this
> should include the construction and operation of coal
> liquefaction plants, possibly under military control with
> the understanding that the output of these plants will be
> the emergency/contingency liquid fuel supplies for the
> military. A large expansion of non-food based bio-fuel
> technology and production, and the production of
> standardized salt cooled thorium fueled reactors in moderate
> sizes. Much of the power output from the thorium reactors
> in the form of high-pressure steam and heat can be used for
> coal liquefaction, and for desalinization of seawater for
> increased irrigation to enhance domestic food production.
> It should be noted that if significant food shortages are to
> be avoided much of the bio-fuels and coal based liquid fuels
> produced must be used in domestic agriculture, which is now
> highly mechanized and automated. Petroleum is also a
> feedstock for many of our more important domestic industries
> such as chemicals/plastics and pharmaceuticals.
>
> There are of course many additional critical tasks, but
> IMNSHO these seem the most pressing and immediately
> dangerous.
>
> ..............................
> The past is a foreign country;
> they do things differently there.
> L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree on #1 and #2...but I understand why...kind of like changing a
tire on a truck going down the freeway.
#3 I think this Administration is doing okay...I understand why the
delay...one doesn't just walk away when nukes are involved.
#4 won't happen until the oil is shut off...and the Republicans are
doing all they can to kill the weaning process...alternate energy
takes time to develop.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think it is there Jeff..but consider the resistance to change.
The health care bill showed us what they are up against...it takes
time to change the course of the Republican Titanic.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On 2/27/2011 4:37 AM, Deep Dudu wrote:
>
> >>>> As usual, the complaint is that he's not cleaning up Bush's mess
> >>>> fast enough.
>
> >>> So you admit Obama is a failure and no better than Bush. Noted.
>
> >> No, I admit that he's not as *much* better than Bush as I'd hoped.
> >> He's still a vast improvement.
>
> > Agreed. I'll have to admit I'm a bit disappointed in Obama's progress,
> > but when you get nothing but a triple decker shit sandwich handed to
> > you it takes awhile to get it all down.
>
>
> Hawke
His mouth is usually full. ;<)
TMT
Strabo
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:54:45 -0500, Strabo<str...@flashlight.net>
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution,
>>>> sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress
>>>> the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:
>>>>
>>>> [Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of
>>>> Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and
>>>> Water;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For a major in Poly Sci, you do not seem to have a clear grasp of the
>>>> Constitution.
>>>>
>>> Um Bush started two wars without a Congressional declaration of war,
>>> so I guess your rule doesn't apply to Republicans?
>>>
>>
>> Yes it does apply. Of course, most of those identifying themselves
>> as Republicans are Neocons and Neocons are disguised Liberals. Yes,
>> George Bush is a Liberal of the hawkish variety.
>
> Oh horseshit. You're probably one of those conservatives who think
> that conservatism is defined by smaller government and greater
> individual liberty when nothing is further from the truth: that is
> libertarianism. And liberalism is NOT defined by totalitarianism.
> You've been brainwashed.
>
Small "c" conservatism IS defined by smaller government and greater
individual liberty than large "C" conservatives, just not as much
liberty or small government as libertarians.
A liberal, the counterpoint to conservative, is for large government
and conditional liberties.
Strabo
The Constitution reads that he is the commander-in-chief of the militia
when the army is 'called' into federal service, implicitely by
Congress, not when the president calls upon them.
>
> No war must be declared. As for what authority he needs, if it's an
> insurrection within a state, there are several ways he can get authority to
> call the militia. But the president decides when and if to send them into a
> conflict. If it's an invasion from a foreign country or attack by an Indian
> tribe, he doesn't need any other authority.
>
By agreement with Congress the president may act as commander-in-chief
for a specified period of time under the War Powers act before getting
congressional approval to continue.
>
> But the issue in question was not actually the militia. I just used that
> example because it reflects the president's authority under Article II,
> Section 2 of the Constitution.
>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> To the issue of war...
>>
>>
>> "The president shall be Commander...when [the militia, army, etc.]
>> [is] called into the actual Service of the United States [by Congress
>> declaring war]."
>>
>> He commands ONLY as commander-in-chief when war is declared by Congress
>> though provisions exist for taking emergency action to be followed up
>> by Congressional action.
>
> You've inverted and be-bracketed the words of the Constitution to imply
> something that they don't say. The Army and the Navy are ALWAYS in actual
> service of the United States, war or not. The reference to actual service
> applies ONLY to the militia.
>
> If you hadn't twisted the sentence around, your error would be clear. Here's
> the actual sentence again:
>
> "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
> United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
> the actual Service of the United States..."
>
Yes, when "called" into "actual" service.
>
> The "when called into the actual Service" refers to the militia, which are
> otherwise in the service of the states. That's what that was all about.
>
The Congress is to fund a declared war for only two years max before
redeclaring war and refunding the army. In other words, *there is
not supposed to be a standing army.* Hence, there should be nothing
to be commander-in-chief of outside of a declared war.
Therefore, "when called into the actual service" refers to any call-up
for any war.
>
> As you know, until the WPR of 1973, the president's authority to send troops
> into foreign wars was often questioned, but never overturned. Even where the
> president's power under Art. II Sec. 2 has been overturned by the USSC
> (Youngstown Sheet& Tube Co. v Sawyer, 1952), the Justices have been careful
> to reaffirm the president's authority over the military itself.
>
Won't be the first time the SCOTUS has acted unconstitutionally.
There is to be no standing army. Without a standing army the
federal government's capacity for mischief is limited.
Ed Huntress
The implication is yours, and it disagrees with the principle of civilian
control and of Art II Sec. 2. If not in the service of the United States, in
whose service are the army and navy during peacetime? Why do we pay them if
they are not in the service of this country? And if you're going to get into
a snit about the standing army, how about the navy?
Your reading of Section 2 is arch and has no grammatical basis. It also is
illogical, because it is the militia, not the army or navy, that is only
called into federal service in wartime -- or in cases of civil insurrection,
as with the Whiskey Rebellion.
The National Guard's official statement has it right:
"Article II, Section 2 places all forces, including the militia when in
federal service, under the control of the executive branch by making the
president Commander-in-Chief."
http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/history/Pages/ConstitutionalCharteroftheGuard.aspx
Hamilton made it clear in Federalist 69:
"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the
United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same
with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to
it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction
of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the
Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war
and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the
Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."
There was much disagreement about the CiC powers of the president during the
early years, but they mostly concerned the extent of the president's powers
during wartime.
>
>>
>> No war must be declared. As for what authority he needs, if it's an
>> insurrection within a state, there are several ways he can get authority
>> to
>> call the militia. But the president decides when and if to send them into
>> a
>> conflict. If it's an invasion from a foreign country or attack by an
>> Indian
>> tribe, he doesn't need any other authority.
>>
>
> By agreement with Congress the president may act as commander-in-chief
> for a specified period of time under the War Powers act before getting
> congressional approval to continue.
"Commander-in-chief" is mentioned only once in the Act (Sec. 2 par. (c)),
and that in regard to such authority as it pertains to joining in
hostilities or imminent hostilities. In fact, the Act was written to limit
his power to initiate or provoke hostilities without consent of Congress.
That's not in the Constitution; it's in this particular law, passed in 1973.
Every president since has rejected the Act's Constitutionality. It has never
been decided definitively in court.
>
> >
>> But the issue in question was not actually the militia. I just used that
>> example because it reflects the president's authority under Article II,
>> Section 2 of the Constitution.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> To the issue of war...
>>>
>>>
>>> "The president shall be Commander...when [the militia, army, etc.]
>>> [is] called into the actual Service of the United States [by Congress
>>> declaring war]."
>>>
>>> He commands ONLY as commander-in-chief when war is declared by Congress
>>> though provisions exist for taking emergency action to be followed up
>>> by Congressional action.
>>
>> You've inverted and be-bracketed the words of the Constitution to imply
>> something that they don't say. The Army and the Navy are ALWAYS in actual
>> service of the United States, war or not. The reference to actual service
>> applies ONLY to the militia.
>>
>> If you hadn't twisted the sentence around, your error would be clear.
>> Here's
>> the actual sentence again:
>>
>> "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
>> United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
>> the actual Service of the United States..."
>>
>
> Yes, when "called" into "actual" service.
That pertains to the militia, which were under state control until called
into the service of the United States. That does not apply to the army or
navy, which are ALWAYS in the actual service of the United States. Most of
the time, at least in the old days, they just weren't shooting anyone in
particular.
>
> >
>> The "when called into the actual Service" refers to the militia, which
>> are
>> otherwise in the service of the states. That's what that was all about.
>>
>
> The Congress is to fund a declared war for only two years max before
> redeclaring war and refunding the army. In other words, *there is
> not supposed to be a standing army.* Hence, there should be nothing
> to be commander-in-chief of outside of a declared war.
Yeah, well, there is one. And George Washington formed it. But they called
it a Legion. <g> Then Congress kept re-funding it, and, presto, we had an
army. So the president is a permanent commander-in-chief of the army and the
navy.
But even if we had no standing army, he would still be CiC of the navy,
which was made permanent in the Constitution.
>
> Therefore, "when called into the actual service" refers to any call-up
> for any war.
Nope. It only applies to the militia.
>
> >
>> As you know, until the WPR of 1973, the president's authority to send
>> troops
>> into foreign wars was often questioned, but never overturned. Even where
>> the
>> president's power under Art. II Sec. 2 has been overturned by the USSC
>> (Youngstown Sheet& Tube Co. v Sawyer, 1952), the Justices have been
>> careful
>> to reaffirm the president's authority over the military itself.
>>
>
> Won't be the first time the SCOTUS has acted unconstitutionally.
Well, they don't have you to parse the document's grammar and inform them of
Constitutional history. d8-)
>
> There is to be no standing army. Without a standing army the
> federal government's capacity for mischief is limited.
They just keep re-funding it, and it's standing all the time. There's
nothing unconstitutional about it. And it was George Washington's idea.
Congress quickly realized that they needed a standing army. When the Brits
routed the undisciplined militiamen at Washington in the War of 1812, even
a libertarian ideologue could see the necessity of it.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> The Constitution reads that he is the commander-in-chief of the militia
>> when the army is 'called' into federal service, implicitely by
>> Congress, not when the president calls upon them.
>
> The implication is yours, and it disagrees with the principle of
> civilian control and of Art II Sec. 2.
Kindly explain that claim:
<begin>
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power,
Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in
writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments,
upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and
he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against
the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to
make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he
shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of
the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of
such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in
the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
<end>
Nowhere does Article 2 dictate a standing army or navy as you suggest.
Strabo is correct, clearly no standing army is allowed. Only "when
called into the actual service of the United States" is an army, navy or
militia allowed.
> If not in the service of the
> United States, in whose service are the army and navy during peacetime?
No one, obviously.
> Why do we pay them if they are not in the service of this country?
Since they the army, navy and militia are not authorized they do not get
paid when not in service.
> And
> if you're going to get into a snit about the standing army, how about
> the navy?
Stop picking ridiculous nits.
> Your reading of Section 2 is arch and has no grammatical basis. It also
> is illogical, because it is the militia, not the army or navy, that is
> only called into federal service in wartime -- or in cases of civil
> insurrection, as with the Whiskey Rebellion.
Not according to the clear words above, and here: "The President shall be
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the
United States..."
There is no distinction between the Army, Navy or Militia as to when they
may be called into service. A standing army is not authorized in this
passage, only an "on-demand" military. Do you have another reference
which might support your claim?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irony defined: http://www.fox.com/lietome/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
Perhaps the moder "Liberal" but not a "liberal" which is the classical
term for what is now called libertarian.
Conservatives are also for conditional liberties, property rights but not
body/civil rights.
Terms change. Today's Republicans are yesterday's Dixicrats while
Democrats have taken up yesteryear's Republican platform.
Yesteryear's Jeffersonian Democrat is today's libertarian and minarchist.
Yesteryear's anti-federalist is today's anarchist. We must be careful of
terms or dialog becomes meaningless.
Ed Huntress
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:ildnut$5cm$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 02:08:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> The Constitution reads that he is the commander-in-chief of the militia
>>> when the army is 'called' into federal service, implicitely by
>>> Congress, not when the president calls upon them.
>>
>> The implication is yours, and it disagrees with the principle of
>> civilian control and of Art II Sec. 2.
>
> Kindly explain that claim:
The navy is ALWAYS in service. During peacetime, if they're not in federal
service, whose service are they in? France? And who is commander in chief of
the navy? The president.
The same applies to the army, when we have one. And, once Washington and
Congress realized we always needed one (in the 1790s -- read the history of
the US Army), all they had to do was keep re-funding it every two years.
Presto chango, a standing army, and no contradiction to the Constitution.
That's how it worked. The Supreme Court supported it in an array of
challenges throughout the 19th century.
>
> <begin>
<snip>
Yeah, I've read it.
>
> Nowhere does Article 2 dictate a standing army or navy as you suggest.
> Strabo is correct, clearly no standing army is allowed.
Strabo is full of libertarian nonsense, as are you. Article I, Sec. 8
authorizes Congress "To provide and maintain a navy." It also authorizes
Congress "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." So, they keep re-funding it
every two years. No problemo.
> Only "when
> called into the actual service of the United States" is an army, navy or
> militia allowed.
And whose service is the navy in, all of the time?
>
>> If not in the service of the
>> United States, in whose service are the army and navy during peacetime?
>
> No one, obviously.
Oh, they just hang around while we keep paying their paychecks? Get real,
Curly.
>
>> Why do we pay them if they are not in the service of this country?
>
> Since they the army, navy and militia are not authorized they do not get
> paid when not in service.
The navy is ALWAYS paid. They are ALWAYS in service. De facto, so is the
army, because Congress keeps them in service.
>
>> And
>> if you're going to get into a snit about the standing army, how about
>> the navy?
>
> Stop picking ridiculous nits.
So, the navy is a ridiculous nit?
>
>> Your reading of Section 2 is arch and has no grammatical basis. It also
>> is illogical, because it is the militia, not the army or navy, that is
>> only called into federal service in wartime -- or in cases of civil
>> insurrection, as with the Whiskey Rebellion.
>
> Not according to the clear words above, and here: "The President shall be
> Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
> Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the
> United States..."
Your reading of it makes no sense. The navy was always in service. When
there is an army (always, now), they are always in service. It is only the
militia that is sometimes in the service of the states, unless they are
called into federal service. So that's how that sentence reads.
Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist 69:
"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the
United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same
with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to
it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction
of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the
Confederacy..."
>
> There is no distinction between the Army, Navy or Militia as to when they
> may be called into service.
When the militia is called into federal service, that's true in the sense
that the president is commander in chief of all three. And the business of
calling the militia into federal service is quite clear in Article I Sec. 8:
Congress is authorized: "To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States."
That's the only reference you'll find to calling the militia, or any other
military unit, into the "Service of the United States." The phrase is used
again, in the same sense, in the Fifth Amendment. And then Congress
transferred the power of actually calling them into federal service to the
president, under defined conditions, in the first Militia Act of 1792.
> A standing army is not authorized in this
> passage, only an "on-demand" military. Do you have another reference
> which might support your claim?
See above. And you might want to read the history of the US Army. It will
explain the change of heart about standing armies, and the Legion, and that
the name was changed to the Army, and that Congress just kept re-funding it.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Oh, now you're over the top into libertarian la-la land. No "minarchist"
would support Jefferson's plan for a tax-supported, government-funded,
three-tier education system. Hard-core libertarians don't seem to support
it, either:
"I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the
diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be
devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness...Preach, my dear
Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating
the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect
us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which
will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what
will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we
leave the people in ignorance."
And liberals, including Jefferson, were all in favor of constructive
re-distribution of revenue, as long as it benefitted the social and economic
goals of the country. From Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address:
"The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is paid
cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic
comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only, and
incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens...The
contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the
government...and to apply such a surplus to our public debts, as places at a
short day their final redemption, and that redemption once effected, the
revenue thereby liberated, may, by a just repartition among the states, and
a corresponding amendment of the constitution, be applied, in time of peace,
to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other objects
within each state."
Phwew, such a socialist, eh?
"Classical liberals" were, in today's terms, highly progressive. Today's
hard-core libertarianism, and particularly "anarcho-capitalism" or
"minarchism," are inventions of some very selective minds, starting mostly
in the 1950s and proceeding to this day. Far from being "originalist," or
"classical liberal," they are the outgrowth of some very severe reactions to
the Cold War and to the directions of communism and earlier socialism
(before social democrats existed) of that time. The ideas have little basis
in early American history. That's what I was trying to get Rich Grise to
address, but he slipped away. <g>
Here's where guys like you and Strabo go wrong: You take selective quotes
from the primary Founders about NATIONAL or FEDERAL government (Madison
rightly pointed out that our federal system is a mixture of the two), and
assume that they were talking about ALL government. As the quotes above make
clear, Jefferson and the other liberals had quite progressive ambitions for
the STATES. That's where the action was, because the states at that time
were the primary sovereign entities, and the national government was
designed primarily to allow the states to cooperate in national endeavors.
That evolved over time, of course, but that isn't an important issue here.
What is important is that Jefferson and other liberals were children of the
French Enlightenment AND the English Enlightenment, and believed that
liberty and cooperative social endeavor -- through taxation and government
support of infrastructure, arts, manufactures, etc. -- were not in conflict
at all. We are at liberty to combine our efforts where we feel it is
constructive and we choose to do so, through the democratic process in each
state.
No minarchist or extreme libertarian deserves that mantle. I don't know one
who really knows American history, except for the selective bits and pieces
that support their agenda. And their agenda is based more on attitude and
wishful thinking than it is on facts, particularly historical facts. Their
ideas grew out of anger, and then they sought some facts that support their
ideas. If they had taken the opposite direction -- study history with an
open mind, and then see what ideas it produces -- they would have very
different views.
For anyone serious about Jefferson and liberalism as it was originally
conceived, I can recommend the Jefferson Archives at the Univ. of Virginia.
The Cyclopedia is comprehensive:
http://guides.lib.virginia.edu/content.php?pid=77323&sid=573588
Read 1,000 or so of those documents and you'll begin to get the flavor of
the real founding ideas. It soaks in with cumulative exposure. You won't get
it from Hayek or Rothbard, or (shudder) from the Libertarian platform. You
can only get if from the originals. And only if you approach it with an open
mind, rather than winnowing it out for quotes that seem to support your
preconceived notions.
>
> Yesteryear's anti-federalist is today's anarchist. We must be careful of
> terms or dialog becomes meaningless.
Baloney to the first; three cheers for the second. Now try putting it into
practice.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
> news:ildnut$5cm$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 02:08:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> The Constitution reads that he is the commander-in-chief of the
>>>> militia when the army is 'called' into federal service, implicitely
>>>> by Congress, not when the president calls upon them.
>>>
>>> The implication is yours, and it disagrees with the principle of
>>> civilian control and of Art II Sec. 2.
>>
>> Kindly explain that claim:
>
> The navy is ALWAYS in service.
Circular reasoning, you're better than that.
> During peacetime, if they're not in
> federal service, whose service are they in? France? And who is commander
> in chief of the navy? The president.
>
> The same applies to the army, when we have one. And, once Washington and
> Congress realized we always needed one (in the 1790s -- read the history
> of the US Army), all they had to do was keep re-funding it every two
> years. Presto chango, a standing army, and no contradiction to the
> Constitution.
Great, let's have a plebiscite vote on military funding.
> That's how it worked. The Supreme Court supported it in an array of
> challenges throughout the 19th century.
>
>
>> <begin>
>
> <snip>
>
> Yeah, I've read it.
Others haven't, why snip the basis of our disagreement if not to redefine
their words and meaning?
>> Nowhere does Article 2 dictate a standing army or navy as you suggest.
>> Strabo is correct, clearly no standing army is allowed.
>
> Strabo is full of libertarian nonsense, as are you. Article I, Sec. 8
> authorizes Congress "To provide and maintain a navy." It also authorizes
> Congress "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to
> that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." So, they keep
> re-funding it every two years. No problemo.
Yes, there are problems. That Constitutional restriction is broken on an
annual basis. Each contract greater than 2 years violates the clear
words and intent of the Constitution.
>> Only "when
>> called into the actual service of the United States" is an army, navy
>> or militia allowed.
>
> And whose service is the navy in, all of the time?
"army, navy or militia". Yes, a navy. No standing army or militia are
authorized.
>>> If not in the service of the
>>> United States, in whose service are the army and navy during
>>> peacetime?
>>
>> No one, obviously.
>
> Oh, they just hang around while we keep paying their paychecks? Get
> real, Curly.
Think "layoffs".
>>> Why do we pay them if they are not in the service of this country?
>>
>> Since they the army, navy and militia are not authorized they do not
>> get paid when not in service.
>
> The navy is ALWAYS paid. They are ALWAYS in service. De facto, so is the
> army, because Congress keeps them in service.
Obfuscation, the army and militia (and by extention air force, marines,
national health service and coast guard) are not authorized by the
Constitution other than as needed, not a standing army.
>>> And
>>> if you're going to get into a snit about the standing army, how about
>>> the navy?
>>
>> Stop picking ridiculous nits.
>
> So, the navy is a ridiculous nit?
No, you're nits are ridiculous.
>>> Your reading of Section 2 is arch and has no grammatical basis. It
>>> also is illogical, because it is the militia, not the army or navy,
>>> that is only called into federal service in wartime -- or in cases of
>>> civil insurrection, as with the Whiskey Rebellion.
>>
>> Not according to the clear words above, and here: "The President shall
>> be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of
>> the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service
>> of the United States..."
>
> Your reading of it makes no sense. The navy was always in service. When
> there is an army (always, now), they are always in service.
There is your illogical leap.
> It is only
> the militia that is sometimes in the service of the states, unless they
> are called into federal service. So that's how that sentence reads.
>
> Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist 69:
>
> "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the
> United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same
> with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior
> to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and
> direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral
> of the Confederacy..."
And I can quote anti-federalist arguments to substantiate my position.
Neither overrule the Constitution. Let's limit the debate to reality,
what exists in the Constitution.
>> There is no distinction between the Army, Navy or Militia as to when
>> they may be called into service.
>
> When the militia is called into federal service, that's true in the
> sense that the president is commander in chief of all three. And the
> business of calling the militia into federal service is quite clear in
> Article I Sec. 8:
>
> Congress is authorized: "To provide for organizing, arming, and
> disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
> employed in the Service of the United States."
>
> That's the only reference you'll find to calling the militia, or any
> other military unit, into the "Service of the United States." The phrase
> is used again, in the same sense, in the Fifth Amendment. And then
> Congress transferred the power of actually calling them into federal
> service to the president, under defined conditions, in the first Militia
> Act of 1792.
To which I'd add the Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and National Health
Service which are also military branches. None are authorized as a
standing "army".
>> A standing army is not authorized in this passage, only an "on-demand"
>> military. Do you have another reference which might support your
>> claim?
>
> See above. And you might want to read the history of the US Army. It
> will explain the change of heart about standing armies, and the Legion,
> and that the name was changed to the Army, and that Congress just kept
> re-funding it.
You misunderstand. I'm not against a standing army, as long as severe
limitations are in place. I'm against violating the Constitution for any
reason or rationalization. If you don't like the law then change it but
do not violate the law.
That is the basis of many of our current ills. When the Federal
government is allowed to violate the law without repercussion then our
nation has died and merely twitches in death spasms.
Curly Surmudgeon
<sarcasm>
Ah, you speak for all libertarians and minarchists.
</sarcasm>
In reality most minarchists and libertarians do support education. Just
not by coercion.
--
Ed Huntress
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:02:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>> news:ildnut$5cm$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 02:08:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The Constitution reads that he is the commander-in-chief of the
>>>>> militia when the army is 'called' into federal service, implicitely
>>>>> by Congress, not when the president calls upon them.
>>>>
>>>> The implication is yours, and it disagrees with the principle of
>>>> civilian control and of Art II Sec. 2.
>>>
>>> Kindly explain that claim:
>>
>> The navy is ALWAYS in service.
>
> Circular reasoning, you're better than that.
? No, it's just a fact. They don't get mass sabbaticals. They're always in
service.
>
>> During peacetime, if they're not in
>> federal service, whose service are they in? France? And who is commander
>> in chief of the navy? The president.
>>
>> The same applies to the army, when we have one. And, once Washington and
>> Congress realized we always needed one (in the 1790s -- read the history
>> of the US Army), all they had to do was keep re-funding it every two
>> years. Presto chango, a standing army, and no contradiction to the
>> Constitution.
>
> Great, let's have a plebiscite vote on military funding.
Where is this provided for in the Constitution?
>
>> That's how it worked. The Supreme Court supported it in an array of
>> challenges throughout the 19th century.
>>
>>
>>> <begin>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Yeah, I've read it.
>
> Others haven't, why snip the basis of our disagreement if not to redefine
> their words and meaning?
It's been quoted in this thread at least three times. That's enough.
>
>>> Nowhere does Article 2 dictate a standing army or navy as you suggest.
>>> Strabo is correct, clearly no standing army is allowed.
>>
>> Strabo is full of libertarian nonsense, as are you. Article I, Sec. 8
>> authorizes Congress "To provide and maintain a navy." It also authorizes
>> Congress "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to
>> that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." So, they keep
>> re-funding it every two years. No problemo.
>
> Yes, there are problems. That Constitutional restriction is broken on an
> annual basis. Each contract greater than 2 years violates the clear
> words and intent of the Constitution.
So, sue them. Good luck with the Supreme Court. Congress can break contracts
any time it wants, and it has. The Constitution only limits states on
rescinding contracts, not the federal government. (Article I, Sec. 10)
Contracts are a libertarian/Ayn Randian shtick, not a Constitutional one.
>
>>> Only "when
>>> called into the actual service of the United States" is an army, navy
>>> or militia allowed.
>>
>> And whose service is the navy in, all of the time?
>
> "army, navy or militia". Yes, a navy. No standing army or militia are
> authorized.
>
>>>> If not in the service of the
>>>> United States, in whose service are the army and navy during
>>>> peacetime?
>>>
>>> No one, obviously.
>>
>> Oh, they just hang around while we keep paying their paychecks? Get
>> real, Curly.
>
> Think "layoffs".
Just think, period.
>
>>>> Why do we pay them if they are not in the service of this country?
>>>
>>> Since they the army, navy and militia are not authorized they do not
>>> get paid when not in service.
>>
>> The navy is ALWAYS paid. They are ALWAYS in service. De facto, so is the
>> army, because Congress keeps them in service.
>
> Obfuscation, the army and militia (and by extention air force, marines,
> national health service and coast guard) are not authorized by the
> Constitution other than as needed, not a standing army.
First, the Marines are a branch of the navy. Second, the Coast Guard is a
revenue-policing service created under the "necessary and proper" clause.
Third, you've already lost on your interpretation of the Constitution in
this regard. Like a fundamentalist Christian who believes only in his own
reading of the Bible, you seem to be adamant in your understanding of the
words. Most people, including the Supreme Court, don't agree with you.
>
>>>> And
>>>> if you're going to get into a snit about the standing army, how about
>>>> the navy?
>>>
>>> Stop picking ridiculous nits.
>>
>> So, the navy is a ridiculous nit?
>
> No, you're nits are ridiculous.
You haven't answered the question about why the president isn't commander in
chief of the navy, all of the time. Instead, you're tossing out adjectives.
>
>>>> Your reading of Section 2 is arch and has no grammatical basis. It
>>>> also is illogical, because it is the militia, not the army or navy,
>>>> that is only called into federal service in wartime -- or in cases of
>>>> civil insurrection, as with the Whiskey Rebellion.
>>>
>>> Not according to the clear words above, and here: "The President shall
>>> be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of
>>> the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service
>>> of the United States..."
>>
>> Your reading of it makes no sense. The navy was always in service. When
>> there is an army (always, now), they are always in service.
>
> There is your illogical leap.
Where is it illogical? Don't give us twisted libertarian "logic." Stick to
the words of the Constitution. If Congress can re-fund the army every two
years, and keeps doing so, what do you have except a de facto standing army?
>
>> It is only
>> the militia that is sometimes in the service of the states, unless they
>> are called into federal service. So that's how that sentence reads.
>>
>> Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist 69:
>>
>> "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the
>> United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same
>> with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior
>> to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and
>> direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral
>> of the Confederacy..."
>
> And I can quote anti-federalist arguments to substantiate my position.
The anti-federalists lost the arguments, except for the Bill of Rights. But
don't let that stop you. Tell us, please, where in the 85 or so of the
anti-federalist papers does it say that the president is not, under the
Constitution, the commander in chief of the navy (at least), all of the
time?
What you're referring to, probably, is the arguments of "Brutus," against a
standing army. But even Brutus admitted that we needed a small one. That was
Washington's "Legion." A few years after Brutus wrote, the entire government
realized we needed a better army. After the War of 1812, nearly everyone
did.
So, as the historians said, we changed our mind. Since there was a provision
for re-funding the army at Congress's discretion, no Amendment to the
Constitution was required. End of story.
> Neither overrule the Constitution. Let's limit the debate to reality,
> what exists in the Constitution.
Hamilton was defending what was *in* the Constitution. But Ok, we'll stick
to it.
>
>>> There is no distinction between the Army, Navy or Militia as to when
>>> they may be called into service.
>>
>> When the militia is called into federal service, that's true in the
>> sense that the president is commander in chief of all three. And the
>> business of calling the militia into federal service is quite clear in
>> Article I Sec. 8:
>>
>> Congress is authorized: "To provide for organizing, arming, and
>> disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
>> employed in the Service of the United States."
>>
>> That's the only reference you'll find to calling the militia, or any
>> other military unit, into the "Service of the United States." The phrase
>> is used again, in the same sense, in the Fifth Amendment. And then
>> Congress transferred the power of actually calling them into federal
>> service to the president, under defined conditions, in the first Militia
>> Act of 1792.
>
> To which I'd add the Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and National Health
> Service which are also military branches. None are authorized as a
> standing "army".
See above. Full-time navy, full-time Marines. The Air Force was created as a
branch of the army. The Coast Guard was a revenue police force. They can be
called into military service in time of war. I'm not getting into the NHS,
because there are limits to how far I'll stray. d8-)
>
>>> A standing army is not authorized in this passage, only an "on-demand"
>>> military. Do you have another reference which might support your
>>> claim?
>>
>> See above. And you might want to read the history of the US Army. It
>> will explain the change of heart about standing armies, and the Legion,
>> and that the name was changed to the Army, and that Congress just kept
>> re-funding it.
>
> You misunderstand. I'm not against a standing army, as long as severe
> limitations are in place. I'm against violating the Constitution for any
> reason or rationalization. If you don't like the law then change it but
> do not violate the law.
No violation is involved. Congress just keeps re-funding it, in compliance
with Article II.
>
> That is the basis of many of our current ills. When the Federal
> government is allowed to violate the law without repercussion then our
> nation has died and merely twitches in death spasms.
That's another argument; one that could go on forever.
--
Ed Huntress
Dan
> The Constitution reads that he is the commander-in-chief of the militia
...when it (the Militia) is called into service.
> when the army is 'called' into federal service,
Um, no.
> implicitely by Congress, not when the president calls upon them.
Um, no. There is more to "service" than fighting a declared war.
> By agreement with Congress the president may act as commander-in-chief
> for a specified period of time under the War Powers act before getting
> congressional approval to continue.
True enough. Similar to the "...as will not admit of delay." clause in
Article I.
> Yes, when "called" into "actual" service.
Yes, service. The standing Army and Navy are always "in actual
service." The Militia is a stand-by, commanded by the President only
when called into actual service (such as helping in a Natural Disaster).
> The Congress is to fund a declared war for only two years max before
> redeclaring war and refunding the army. In other words, *there is
> not supposed to be a standing army.*
Nothing implies that. Just that funding is on a two year cycle (no
"recedlaring" of any war is stated or implied).
> Hence, there should be nothing
> to be commander-in-chief of outside of a declared war.
What are you talking about?
> Therefore, "when called into the actual service" refers to any call-up
> for any war.
Or any other purpose, of the MILITIA.
> There is to be no standing army. Without a standing army the
> federal government's capacity for mischief is limited.
Point out where the Constitution says that and we can talk.
Dan
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
> news:ile0j8$ltl$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:02:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ildnut$5cm$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 02:08:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>>>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The Constitution reads that he is the commander-in-chief of the
>>>>>> militia when the army is 'called' into federal service, implicitely
>>>>>> by Congress, not when the president calls upon them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The implication is yours, and it disagrees with the principle of
>>>>> civilian control and of Art II Sec. 2.
>>>>
>>>> Kindly explain that claim:
>>>
>>> The navy is ALWAYS in service.
>>
>> Circular reasoning, you're better than that.
>
> ? No, it's just a fact. They don't get mass sabbaticals. They're always
> in service.
My mistake. I was talking about the army and you substituted navy. Yes,
the navy is allowed full time status. That is the only branch allowed
full time status by the Constitution.
>>> During peacetime, if they're not in
>>> federal service, whose service are they in? France? And who is
>>> commander in chief of the navy? The president.
>>>
>>> The same applies to the army, when we have one. And, once Washington
>>> and Congress realized we always needed one (in the 1790s -- read the
>>> history of the US Army), all they had to do was keep re-funding it
>>> every two years. Presto chango, a standing army, and no contradiction
>>> to the Constitution.
>>
>> Great, let's have a plebiscite vote on military funding.
>
> Where is this provided for in the Constitution?
Who said it was?
>>> That's how it worked. The Supreme Court supported it in an array of
>>> challenges throughout the 19th century.
>>>
>>>
>>>> <begin>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I've read it.
>>
>> Others haven't, why snip the basis of our disagreement if not to
>> redefine their words and meaning?
>
> It's been quoted in this thread at least three times. That's enough.
So why do you keep snipping it? When conflicting opinions exist the
original source must be available to discern who is wrong. Eliminating
the benchmark indicates that you don't want readers to access your
elegant presentation and opinion rather than the ruling text.
>>>> Nowhere does Article 2 dictate a standing army or navy as you
>>>> suggest. Strabo is correct, clearly no standing army is allowed.
>>>
>>> Strabo is full of libertarian nonsense, as are you. Article I, Sec. 8
>>> authorizes Congress "To provide and maintain a navy." It also
>>> authorizes Congress "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation
>>> of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." So,
>>> they keep re-funding it every two years. No problemo.
>>
>> Yes, there are problems. That Constitutional restriction is broken on
>> an annual basis. Each contract greater than 2 years violates the clear
>> words and intent of the Constitution.
>
> So, sue them.
Silly, you know quite well that a citizen is incapable of suing the
Federal Government which has infinitely deep pockets and a stacked jury.
> Good luck with the Supreme Court. Congress can break
> contracts any time it wants, and it has.
No, the Constitution is not a "contract" and Congress cannot break it
"any time it wants." A ridiculous assertion.
> The Constitution only limits
> states on rescinding contracts, not the federal government. (Article I,
> Sec. 10) Contracts are a libertarian/Ayn Randian shtick, not a
> Constitutional one.
Irrelevant, we're taking Constitutional law not contracts. This is what
I meant about not snipping the regulating law, you're diverging off into
la-la land.
>>>> Only "when
>>>> called into the actual service of the United States" is an army, navy
>>>> or militia allowed.
>>>
>>> And whose service is the navy in, all of the time?
>>
>> "army, navy or militia". Yes, a navy. No standing army or militia are
>> authorized.
>>
>>>>> If not in the service of the
>>>>> United States, in whose service are the army and navy during
>>>>> peacetime?
>>>>
>>>> No one, obviously.
>>>
>>> Oh, they just hang around while we keep paying their paychecks? Get
>>> real, Curly.
>>
>> Think "layoffs".
>
> Just think, period.
>
>
>>>>> Why do we pay them if they are not in the service of this country?
>>>>
>>>> Since they the army, navy and militia are not authorized they do not
>>>> get paid when not in service.
>>>
>>> The navy is ALWAYS paid. They are ALWAYS in service. De facto, so is
>>> the army, because Congress keeps them in service.
>>
>> Obfuscation, the army and militia (and by extention air force, marines,
>> national health service and coast guard) are not authorized by the
>> Constitution other than as needed, not a standing army.
>
> First, the Marines are a branch of the navy.
Nope: "The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is a branch of the United
States Armed Forces responsible for providing power projection from the
sea,[7] using the mobility of the United States Navy to deliver combined-
arms task forces rapidly. It is one of seven uniformed services of the
United States. In the civilian leadership structure of the United States
military, the Marine Corps is a component of the United States Department
of the Navy,[8][9] often working closely with U.S. naval forces for
training, transportation, and logistic purposes; however, in the military
leadership structure the Marine Corps is a separate branch."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps
> Second, the Coast Guard is
> a revenue-policing service created under the "necessary and proper"
> clause.
Nope again: "The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a branch of the
United States Armed Forces and one of the seven U.S. uniformed services.
The Coast Guard is a maritime, military, multi-mission service unique
among the military branches for having a maritime law enforcement mission
(with jurisdiction in both domestic and international waters) and a
federal regulatory agency mission as part of its mission set. It operates
under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, and can be
transferred to the Department of the Navy by the President at any time or
Congress during time of war."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard
> Third, you've already lost on your interpretation of the
> Constitution in this regard.
Opinion noted. Given the erroneous statements above I don't give much
credence to this claim either.
> Like a fundamentalist Christian who
> believes only in his own reading of the Bible, you seem to be adamant in
> your understanding of the words. Most people, including the Supreme
> Court, don't agree with you.
When arguments fail do you usually stoop to ad hominems?
>>>>> And
>>>>> if you're going to get into a snit about the standing army, how
>>>>> about the navy?
>>>>
>>>> Stop picking ridiculous nits.
>>>
>>> So, the navy is a ridiculous nit?
>>
>> No, your nits are ridiculous.
>
> You haven't answered the question about why the president isn't
> commander in chief of the navy, all of the time. Instead, you're tossing
> out adjectives.
When did you pose that question and why do you think I should answer your
distractions?
>>>>> Your reading of Section 2 is arch and has no grammatical basis. It
>>>>> also is illogical, because it is the militia, not the army or navy,
>>>>> that is only called into federal service in wartime -- or in cases
>>>>> of civil insurrection, as with the Whiskey Rebellion.
>>>>
>>>> Not according to the clear words above, and here: "The President
>>>> shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
>>>> States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
>>>> the actual Service of the United States..."
>>>
>>> Your reading of it makes no sense. The navy was always in service.
>>> When there is an army (always, now), they are always in service.
>>
>> There is your illogical leap.
>
> Where is it illogical?
"When there is an army (always, now), they are always in service."
> Don't give us twisted libertarian "logic." Stick
> to the words of the Constitution. If Congress can re-fund the army every
> two years, and keeps doing so, what do you have except a de facto
> standing army?
"De facto" is an end-run on Constitutional limitations. You may be fine
with violating the very words, meanings and intent but I am not.
>>> It is only
>>> the militia that is sometimes in the service of the states, unless
>>> they are called into federal service. So that's how that sentence
>>> reads.
>>>
>>> Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist 69:
>>>
>>> "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the
>>> United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the
>>> same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much
>>> inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme
>>> command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first
>>> General and admiral of the Confederacy..."
>>
>> And I can quote anti-federalist arguments to substantiate my position.
>
> The anti-federalists lost the arguments, except for the Bill of Rights.
> But don't let that stop you. Tell us, please, where in the 85 or so of
> the anti-federalist papers does it say that the president is not, under
> the Constitution, the commander in chief of the navy (at least), all of
> the time?
That's your distraction, go chase it yourself.
> What you're referring to, probably, is the arguments of "Brutus,"
> against a standing army. But even Brutus admitted that we needed a small
> one. That was Washington's "Legion." A few years after Brutus wrote, the
> entire government realized we needed a better army. After the War of
> 1812, nearly everyone did.
>
> So, as the historians said, we changed our mind. Since there was a
> provision for re-funding the army at Congress's discretion, no Amendment
> to the Constitution was required. End of story.
You apparently believe that. Nice to be so comfortable in a bubble of
belief which can be pricked at any moment. Again, the Constitution does
not permit a standing army. Your, and Congress', end-run on the
Constitution does not make it valid. Only coercion and illegal activity
by our own government perpetuates your belief.
>> Neither overrule the Constitution. Let's limit the debate to reality,
>> what exists in the Constitution.
>
> Hamilton was defending what was *in* the Constitution. But Ok, we'll
> stick to it.
>
>
>>>> There is no distinction between the Army, Navy or Militia as to when
>>>> they may be called into service.
>>>
>>> When the militia is called into federal service, that's true in the
>>> sense that the president is commander in chief of all three. And the
>>> business of calling the militia into federal service is quite clear in
>>> Article I Sec. 8:
>>>
>>> Congress is authorized: "To provide for organizing, arming, and
>>> disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may
>>> be employed in the Service of the United States."
>>>
>>> That's the only reference you'll find to calling the militia, or any
>>> other military unit, into the "Service of the United States." The
>>> phrase is used again, in the same sense, in the Fifth Amendment. And
>>> then Congress transferred the power of actually calling them into
>>> federal service to the president, under defined conditions, in the
>>> first Militia Act of 1792.
>>
>> To which I'd add the Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and National
>> Health Service which are also military branches. None are authorized
>> as a standing "army".
>
> See above. Full-time navy, full-time Marines. The Air Force was created
> as a branch of the army.
And God created Adam... The Air Force is one of seven branches of the
United States military.
> The Coast Guard was a revenue police force.
And lizards are the offspring of dinosaurs. Today the Coast Guard is one
of the seven branches of the United States Military. Stop living in the
past and adhere to the rule of law. By continuously shading events and
law to justify your belief structure you can, indeed, create an
artificial reality bubble but that has little impact on the reality we
all share.
The Constitution does not permit a standing Army and there are seven
branches of the military. Only one is authorized by the Constitution to
exist continuously.
> They can be called into military service in time of war. I'm not getting
> into the NHS, because there are limits to how far I'll stray. d8-)
>
>
>>>> A standing army is not authorized in this passage, only an
>>>> "on-demand" military. Do you have another reference which might
>>>> support your claim?
>>>
>>> See above. And you might want to read the history of the US Army. It
>>> will explain the change of heart about standing armies, and the
>>> Legion, and that the name was changed to the Army, and that Congress
>>> just kept re-funding it.
>>
>> You misunderstand. I'm not against a standing army, as long as severe
>> limitations are in place. I'm against violating the Constitution for
>> any reason or rationalization. If you don't like the law then change
>> it but do not violate the law.
>
> No violation is involved. Congress just keeps re-funding it, in
> compliance with Article II.
A regrettably legal end-run on the clear words and meaning of the
Constitution. Again, you are obviously fine with legal shenanigans
concerning the Constitution and rule of law.
I'm not. If you want to evade a Constitutional provision then change it,
don't evade or violate the clear meaning. Just like the gun-grabbers who
twist the 2nd, the neocons and their sycophants who advocate violating
the 4th amendment and the religious right who violate the separation of
Church and State, you seem just fine with chipping away at the very
foundation of our once-great nation.
I'm not.
>> That is the basis of many of our current ills. When the Federal
>> government is allowed to violate the law without repercussion then our
>> nation has died and merely twitches in death spasms.
>
> That's another argument; one that could go on forever.
No, it's part of the same discussion. You are part of the problem, not
the solution, for perpetuating the ever expanding sleeze factor in
evading the clear meaning of our Constitution.
Curly Surmudgeon
>> Yes, when "called" into "actual" service.
>
> Yes, service. The standing Army and Navy are always "in actual
> service."
There's that self referential, circular, argument again.
Unless at war the Army is not in service. When was the last time
Congress declared war? When did the USA begin to really go down the
toilet? Note the correlation.
Since America has expanded the "War Department" into the "Department of
Defense" (perhaps the most dishonorable misnaming in history) we've been
in almost constant armed conflict using the military as an extention of
Corporate enforcement, not defense of America.
None of the armed conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon,
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay,
Argentina, Brazil, Philipines are even remotely "defensive".
Keeping a standing Corporate Army ready to enforce profits produces the
diametric opposite effect of National Security.
Strabo
> "Curly Surmudgeon"<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
> news:ildobb$5cm$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:53:33 -0500, Strabo<str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
<snipped>
> For anyone serious about Jefferson and liberalism as it was originally
> conceived, I can recommend the Jefferson Archives at the Univ. of Virginia.
> The Cyclopedia is comprehensive:
>
> http://guides.lib.virginia.edu/content.php?pid=77323&sid=573588
>
> Read 1,000 or so of those documents and you'll begin to get the flavor of
> the real founding ideas. It soaks in with cumulative exposure. You won't get
> it from Hayek or Rothbard, or (shudder) from the Libertarian platform. You
> can only get if from the originals. And only if you approach it with an open
> mind, rather than winnowing it out for quotes that seem to support your
> preconceived notions.
>
What was considered 'liberal' in Jefferson's day? What is classical
liberalism?
1. The denial of divine right kingship, monarchies and religious
absolutism.
2. The recognition of the individual as the center of the universe
while acknowledging his Creator as the Founder.
The Enlightenment spoke to the expansion of thought and reasoning,
not government largesse.
Yes, you can quote me.
The libertarian thought complex can be summed from Jefferson's
"Declaration of Independence." In this we see the basis for the
formula for inherent and unalienable Rights, an exercise of
individual power which cannot be legitimately removed by a king
or government because such power did not originate with either.
This power is demonstrated by the Rule of Rights: A Right is an action
or actions by one individual which do NOT infringe on another
individual's Rights OR place an obligation on that individual.
Pure Jeffersonian.
1776 - 1820s...
1. There was no income tax or central bank. Attempts were roundly
defeated.
2. Taxes were minimal everywhere. Some jurisdictions taxed whiskey,
and certain exports and imports and the voting citizen's estate.
Wars were funded through volunteerism and special taxes.
3. There were no welfare programs. The concept didn't exist and
legislators openly ridiculed government grants.
4. The were no state or federal entitlements. In fact the original
13th amendment found in the Virginia law books specifically
prohibited anyone running for office who had a title of nobility
or other presumption of entitlement.
5. There was no general plan of education. This is a 1880s concept
fostered by Bellamy and other Fabian socialists. Instead, children
were home-schooled or apprenticed. For adults there were
universities founded by the states and funded by religious
institutions where students paid for room and board.
6. There were no police, prosecutors or public defenders. The 'criminal
justice system' consisted of sheriffs, juries, judges and the
common law.
Aside from the occasional county poorhouse, about the only benefit
offered by government was to a jail or gallows.
That was while Jefferson was alive. And he didn't bitch.
That was minimal government. That was liberal. That was terrific.
<snipped>
Strabo
<snipped>
>>>
>>> As you know, until the WPR of 1973, the president's authority to send
>>> troops
>>> into foreign wars was often questioned, but never overturned. Even where
>>> the
>>> president's power under Art. II Sec. 2 has been overturned by the USSC
>>> (Youngstown Sheet& Tube Co. v Sawyer, 1952), the Justices have been
>>> careful
>>> to reaffirm the president's authority over the military itself.
>>>
>>
>> Won't be the first time the SCOTUS has acted unconstitutionally.
>
> Well, they don't have you to parse the document's grammar and inform them of
> Constitutional history. d8-)
>
>>
>> There is to be no standing army. Without a standing army the
>> federal government's capacity for mischief is limited.
>
> They just keep re-funding it, and it's standing all the time. There's
> nothing unconstitutional about it. And it was George Washington's idea.
> Congress quickly realized that they needed a standing army. When the Brits
> routed the undisciplined militiamen at Washington in the War of 1812, even
> a libertarian ideologue could see the necessity of it.
>
I think our differing views are clear.
Ed Huntress
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:14:09 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>> news:ile0j8$ltl$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:02:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ildnut$5cm$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 02:08:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>>>>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Constitution reads that he is the commander-in-chief of the
>>>>>>> militia when the army is 'called' into federal service, implicitely
>>>>>>> by Congress, not when the president calls upon them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The implication is yours, and it disagrees with the principle of
>>>>>> civilian control and of Art II Sec. 2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kindly explain that claim:
>>>>
>>>> The navy is ALWAYS in service.
>>>
>>> Circular reasoning, you're better than that.
>>
>> ? No, it's just a fact. They don't get mass sabbaticals. They're always
>> in service.
>
> My mistake. I was talking about the army and you substituted navy. Yes,
> the navy is allowed full time status. That is the only branch allowed
> full time status by the Constitution.
Nope. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we are not to have a
standing army. Only that Congress must renew the money appropriations for it
at least every two years. See Article I, Sec. 8. ([Congress shall have the
Power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.) And then, if you can, show
us where it says Congress can not renew the appropriation.
>
>>>> During peacetime, if they're not in
>>>> federal service, whose service are they in? France? And who is
>>>> commander in chief of the navy? The president.
>>>>
>>>> The same applies to the army, when we have one. And, once Washington
>>>> and Congress realized we always needed one (in the 1790s -- read the
>>>> history of the US Army), all they had to do was keep re-funding it
>>>> every two years. Presto chango, a standing army, and no contradiction
>>>> to the Constitution.
>>>
>>> Great, let's have a plebiscite vote on military funding.
>>
>> Where is this provided for in the Constitution?
>
> Who said it was?
I thought you were a Constitutionalist. Are you suggesting that we should
have a new Amendment?
>
>>>> That's how it worked. The Supreme Court supported it in an array of
>>>> challenges throughout the 19th century.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> <begin>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I've read it.
>>>
>>> Others haven't, why snip the basis of our disagreement if not to
>>> redefine their words and meaning?
>>
>> It's been quoted in this thread at least three times. That's enough.
>
> So why do you keep snipping it?
I only snipped it once. You're free to re-insert it, if you're having
trouble remembering what it says.
> When conflicting opinions exist the
> original source must be available to discern who is wrong.
Then quit whining and put it back in.
> Eliminating
> the benchmark indicates that you don't want readers to access your
> elegant presentation and opinion rather than the ruling text.
I give them more credit than you do.
>
>>>>> Nowhere does Article 2 dictate a standing army or navy as you
>>>>> suggest. Strabo is correct, clearly no standing army is allowed.
>>>>
>>>> Strabo is full of libertarian nonsense, as are you. Article I, Sec. 8
>>>> authorizes Congress "To provide and maintain a navy." It also
>>>> authorizes Congress "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation
>>>> of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." So,
>>>> they keep re-funding it every two years. No problemo.
>>>
>>> Yes, there are problems. That Constitutional restriction is broken on
>>> an annual basis. Each contract greater than 2 years violates the clear
>>> words and intent of the Constitution.
>>
>> So, sue them.
>
> Silly, you know quite well that a citizen is incapable of suing the
> Federal Government which has infinitely deep pockets and a stacked jury.
Ain't the Constitution a bitch sometimes?
>
>> Good luck with the Supreme Court. Congress can break
>> contracts any time it wants, and it has.
>
> No, the Constitution is not a "contract" and Congress cannot break it
> "any time it wants." A ridiculous assertion.
The contract you were talking about above is not the Constitution itself. It
is the supposed contracts that Congress makes with members of the armed
forces. As for the "clear words and intent of the Constitution," please show
us the clear words that say Congress cannot keep re-funding the army.
>
>> The Constitution only limits
>> states on rescinding contracts, not the federal government. (Article I,
>> Sec. 10) Contracts are a libertarian/Ayn Randian shtick, not a
>> Constitutional one.
>
> Irrelevant, we're taking Constitutional law not contracts. This is what
> I meant about not snipping the regulating law, you're diverging off into
> la-la land.
Nope. The Constitution is not the contract. You were talking about contracts
Congress may make that extend beyond the two-year appropriation limit on
funding the army.
It's part of the Department of the Navy, as it has been since 1798, and
civilian control (led by the president) is conducted through the Navy
Department.
>
>> Second, the Coast Guard is
>> a revenue-policing service created under the "necessary and proper"
>> clause.
>
> Nope again: "The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a branch of the
> United States Armed Forces and one of the seven U.S. uniformed services.
We're talking about the time of the writing of the Constitution, Curly. The
Coast Guard was established as a revenue service to police merchant ships.
It was later called the Revenue Cutter Service. It was joined to the
Lifesaving Service, and for many years was a combination of those two
services, neither of which was founded as a military unit.
> The Coast Guard is a maritime, military, multi-mission service unique
> among the military branches for having a maritime law enforcement mission
> (with jurisdiction in both domestic and international waters) and a
> federal regulatory agency mission as part of its mission set. It operates
> under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, and can be
> transferred to the Department of the Navy by the President at any time or
> Congress during time of war."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard
>
>> Third, you've already lost on your interpretation of the
>> Constitution in this regard.
>
> Opinion noted. Given the erroneous statements above I don't give much
> credence to this claim either.
Neither of my statements was erroneous. You've rather foolishly quoted
descriptions of what they are *today*, when we were talking about their
founding and their civilian control by the commander in chief and the
Congress.
>
>> Like a fundamentalist Christian who
>> believes only in his own reading of the Bible, you seem to be adamant in
>> your understanding of the words. Most people, including the Supreme
>> Court, don't agree with you.
>
> When arguments fail do you usually stoop to ad hominems?
You seem to have the Usenet's scattershot definition of ad hominem. An ad
hominem is an argument about some irrelevant characteristic -- such as,
you're not credible about Constitutional history because you beat your wife.
d8-)
If I say that your reading is not accurate because you have made arch and
idiosyncratic interpretations of the Constitution, that's not ad hominem.
The key to ad hominem is that the criticism must be irrelevant to the point
being discussed. I'm just commenting on the nature of your interpretations
themselves. That is not ad hominem.
>
>>>>>> And
>>>>>> if you're going to get into a snit about the standing army, how
>>>>>> about the navy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop picking ridiculous nits.
>>>>
>>>> So, the navy is a ridiculous nit?
>>>
>>> No, your nits are ridiculous.
>>
>> You haven't answered the question about why the president isn't
>> commander in chief of the navy, all of the time. Instead, you're tossing
>> out adjectives.
>
> When did you pose that question and why do you think I should answer your
> distractions?
You're the one who said the president is only commander in chief during
"actual service," whatever you mean by that: "Only 'when called into the
actual service of the United States" is an army, navy or militia allowed.'"
To which I responded that the navy is always in the actual service of the
United States, at which point you began spinning like a top.
>
>>>>>> Your reading of Section 2 is arch and has no grammatical basis. It
>>>>>> also is illogical, because it is the militia, not the army or navy,
>>>>>> that is only called into federal service in wartime -- or in cases
>>>>>> of civil insurrection, as with the Whiskey Rebellion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not according to the clear words above, and here: "The President
>>>>> shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
>>>>> States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
>>>>> the actual Service of the United States..."
>>>>
>>>> Your reading of it makes no sense. The navy was always in service.
>>>> When there is an army (always, now), they are always in service.
>>>
>>> There is your illogical leap.
>>
>> Where is it illogical?
>
> "When there is an army (always, now), they are always in service."
>
>> Don't give us twisted libertarian "logic." Stick
>> to the words of the Constitution. If Congress can re-fund the army every
>> two years, and keeps doing so, what do you have except a de facto
>> standing army?
>
> "De facto" is an end-run on Constitutional limitations. You may be fine
> with violating the very words, meanings and intent but I am not.
There is no Constitutional limitation, except that Congress must fund the
army at least every two years. The "no standing army" is not a part of the
Constitution. Nor was it universally agreed. Even the anti-federalists said
no *large* standing army. But they didn't get that written into the
Constitution, either.
You have a wacky view of the Constitution. Fortunately, only a few on the
fringes agree with you.
And where did it come from, oh historical sage?
>
>> The Coast Guard was a revenue police force.
>
> And lizards are the offspring of dinosaurs. Today the Coast Guard is one
> of the seven branches of the United States Military. Stop living in the
> past and adhere to the rule of law.
Oh, I thought we were talking about the Constitution. That was written far
in the past. Does today's Coast Guard somehow violate the Constitution, in
your idiosyncratic view? How about the Air Force? Is that a violation?
> By continuously shading events and
> law to justify your belief structure you can, indeed, create an
> artificial reality bubble but that has little impact on the reality we
> all share.
Uh, I don't think you share the same reality with most of us. <g> The
reality is that we have, and have always had, a standing navy; that the army
is no violation of the Constitution; and that other branches of the military
service have grown out of them, or in the case of the Coast Guard, have
become attached to them.
That's reality. What reality are you involved with? Are you saying we're all
living in Constitional sin? <g>
>
> The Constitution does not permit a standing Army and there are seven
> branches of the military. Only one is authorized by the Constitution to
> exist continuously.
Is this the libertarian spin? Do you have your own, special version of the
Constitution that says Congress can't re-fund the army every two years?
>
>> They can be called into military service in time of war. I'm not getting
>> into the NHS, because there are limits to how far I'll stray. d8-)
>>
>>
>>>>> A standing army is not authorized in this passage, only an
>>>>> "on-demand" military. Do you have another reference which might
>>>>> support your claim?
>>>>
>>>> See above. And you might want to read the history of the US Army. It
>>>> will explain the change of heart about standing armies, and the
>>>> Legion, and that the name was changed to the Army, and that Congress
>>>> just kept re-funding it.
>>>
>>> You misunderstand. I'm not against a standing army, as long as severe
>>> limitations are in place. I'm against violating the Constitution for
>>> any reason or rationalization. If you don't like the law then change
>>> it but do not violate the law.
>>
>> No violation is involved. Congress just keeps re-funding it, in
>> compliance with Article II.
>
> A regrettably legal end-run on the clear words and meaning of the
> Constitution.
Those are the words and "meaning" you've created in your imagination. The
Constitution left open the question of how Congress may fund the army, as
long as no individual funding exceeds two years.
> Again, you are obviously fine with legal shenanigans
> concerning the Constitution and rule of law.
And you are obviously among the deadest of Dead Constitutionalists. What's
interesting is that I'm far from being a Living Constitutionalist. It's just
that I'm not as dead about it as you are. d8-)
Again, if you study the history of the ideas about a standing army, the
country had pretty much changed its mind about it before 1800. An Amendment
might have been in order, but it wasn't needed. Congress already had the
authority to fund the army every two years, and to keep it going. So they
did.
This is a good example of why Jefferson said:
"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual
constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the
living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as
they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own
persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and
property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the
laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with
those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it
ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law,
naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is
an act of force and not of right."
For the record, Madison did not agree. That's the way it goes. On principle,
Jefferson has the stronger case. As a practical matter, Madison had a better
appreciation of what would work.
One of the dilemmas we face is that the Constitution could not possibly
anticipate many future circumstances, such as our militia getting creamed by
the professional, disciplined British army at Washington. Another dilemma is
that the Constitution was written before we had the 14th Amendment, and thus
the Founders could comfort themselves with the fact that they weren't
telling the states what individual rights they had to respect. For the same
reason, neither did they have to worry about what other rights were reserved
to the states, or the people. That was the states' business, before the
14th.
Madison wanted a Constitution cast more or less in stone. Jefferson wanted
to tear it up and re-write it every 19 years. Neither position addresses the
needs of the republic. We need both an ability to squeeze it a bit to suit
particular circumstances, and the ability to make large, overt revisions
when interpretations won't do. The latter is impractical in all but the most
extreme and general circumstances. The former presents a potential danger,
but most people are satisfied with how it's worked out (9/'09 Gallup Poll:
61% favor Supreme Court rulings in general).
That's about the best one could hope for, IMO. The dead heads seem to think
the Constitution is a suicide pact. They don't read enough Supreme Court
decisions to avoid making hubristic and foolish declarations about how the
Constition is being "trashed." They just have attitudes and ill-founded
opinions.
The Living Constitutionalists likewise think they're tuned into the thoughts
of the Founders, and can expand and contract the actual document to suit
their social goals and their idea of how the world has changed. Those of us
in the center reject both approaches. Clearly, by the way the Constitution
addresses the issue of armies and the commander in chief, there is plenty of
latitude to allow the present status of our armed forces, and their control,
within its wording and reasonable interpretation. That's a pretty good
thing.
And we have the law on our side. d8-)
>
> I'm not. If you want to evade a Constitutional provision then change it,
> don't evade or violate the clear meaning. Just like the gun-grabbers who
> twist the 2nd, the neocons and their sycophants who advocate violating
> the 4th amendment and the religious right who violate the separation of
> Church and State, you seem just fine with chipping away at the very
> foundation of our once-great nation.
Pffhhhht. The 2nd Amendment's meaning depends on which historical doctrine
you accept. Robert Bork, a hard-core originalist, says it applies only to
militias, in its strict, originalist sense. He's right; I've read reams of
evidence. But that doesn't mean that the 2nd doesn't assume an individual
right, or that it's implicit in the 2nd. I believe that's the case. Scalia
did a fair job of taking that approach in Heller. But in order to do it, he
had to depart from the *primary* "authoritative sources (primarily the
transcript of the First Congress hearings on the Bill of Rights. which were
all about the militia with NO mention of an individual right). That's a very
un-originalist thing to do. Bork was the real originalist in this case. But
it accurately reflects the overall original intent, IMO. He had to tread
pretty closely to an interpretive view that he often disparaged in his other
writings.
Nor do you seem to have a good handle on the religion issues in the 1st.
(Several states had state religions, and had religious taxes, even after the
Constitution was ratified. There was no reason they could not. Do you not
agree?) Again, hard-core originalists make a good case that we've gone
overboard on the separation issue.
>
> I'm not.
>
>>> That is the basis of many of our current ills. When the Federal
>>> government is allowed to violate the law without repercussion then our
>>> nation has died and merely twitches in death spasms.
>>
>> That's another argument; one that could go on forever.
>
> No, it's part of the same discussion. You are part of the problem, not
> the solution, for perpetuating the ever expanding sleeze factor in
> evading the clear meaning of our Constitution.
Pffhhht. It's been my main intellectual hobby for 35 years. I'll be glad to
deal with your idiosyncratic interpretations any time.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
You have it precisely backwards. Only that *permitted* the Federal
Goverment by the Constitution is legal, all else is reserved to the
several states.
> Only that Congress must renew the money appropriations
> for it at least every two years. See Article I, Sec. 8. ([Congress shall
> have the Power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of
> Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.) And then,
> if you can, show us where it says Congress can not renew the
> appropriation.
>
>
>>>>> During peacetime, if they're not in
>>>>> federal service, whose service are they in? France? And who is
>>>>> commander in chief of the navy? The president.
>>>>>
>>>>> The same applies to the army, when we have one. And, once Washington
>>>>> and Congress realized we always needed one (in the 1790s -- read the
>>>>> history of the US Army), all they had to do was keep re-funding it
>>>>> every two years. Presto chango, a standing army, and no
>>>>> contradiction to the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> Great, let's have a plebiscite vote on military funding.
>>>
>>> Where is this provided for in the Constitution?
>>
>> Who said it was?
>
> I thought you were a Constitutionalist. Are you suggesting that we
> should have a new Amendment?
Go chase your own straw men.
>>>>> That's how it worked. The Supreme Court supported it in an array of
>>>>> challenges throughout the 19th century.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> <begin>
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I've read it.
>>>>
>>>> Others haven't, why snip the basis of our disagreement if not to
>>>> redefine their words and meaning?
>>>
>>> It's been quoted in this thread at least three times. That's enough.
>>
>> So why do you keep snipping it?
>
> I only snipped it once. You're free to re-insert it, if you're having
> trouble remembering what it says.
>
>> When conflicting opinions exist the
>> original source must be available to discern who is wrong.
>
> Then quit whining and put it back in.
Quit snipping what you don't want people to see.
>> Eliminating
>> the benchmark indicates that you don't want readers to access your
>> elegant presentation and opinion rather than the ruling text.
>
> I give them more credit than you do.
So you premasticate their information...
>>>>>> Nowhere does Article 2 dictate a standing army or navy as you
>>>>>> suggest. Strabo is correct, clearly no standing army is allowed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Strabo is full of libertarian nonsense, as are you. Article I, Sec.
>>>>> 8 authorizes Congress "To provide and maintain a navy." It also
>>>>> authorizes Congress "To raise and support Armies, but no
>>>>> Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than
>>>>> two Years." So, they keep re-funding it every two years. No
>>>>> problemo.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are problems. That Constitutional restriction is broken
>>>> on an annual basis. Each contract greater than 2 years violates the
>>>> clear words and intent of the Constitution.
>>>
>>> So, sue them.
>>
>> Silly, you know quite well that a citizen is incapable of suing the
>> Federal Government which has infinitely deep pockets and a stacked
>> jury.
>
> Ain't the Constitution a bitch sometimes?
So are those who advocate end runs on the Constitution...
>>> Good luck with the Supreme Court. Congress can break contracts any
>>> time it wants, and it has.
>>
>> No, the Constitution is not a "contract" and Congress cannot break it
>> "any time it wants." A ridiculous assertion.
>
> The contract you were talking about above is not the Constitution
> itself.
I have mentioned no "contract", stop already with the distractions and
bullshit.
> It is the supposed contracts that Congress makes with members of
> the armed forces.
Whatever you're babbling about is irrelevant to this thread. Take it
elsewhere.
> As for the "clear words and intent of the
> Constitution," please show us the clear words that say Congress cannot
> keep re-funding the army.
Please show where the clear words and intent of the Constitution meant a
standing army.
>>> The Constitution only limits
>>> states on rescinding contracts, not the federal government. (Article
>>> I, Sec. 10) Contracts are a libertarian/Ayn Randian shtick, not a
>>> Constitutional one.
>>
>> Irrelevant, we're taking Constitutional law not contracts. This is
>> what I meant about not snipping the regulating law, you're diverging
>> off into la-la land.
>
> Nope. The Constitution is not the contract. You were talking about
> contracts Congress may make that extend beyond the two-year
> appropriation limit on funding the army.
Bullshit. I speak/spoke of no stinkin' contract, that's your distraction.
No, the Marines are no longer a part of the Navy, read the fucking text:
"the Marine Corps is a separate branch".
>>> Second, the Coast Guard is
>>> a revenue-policing service created under the "necessary and proper"
>>> clause.
>>
>> Nope again: "The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a branch of the
>> United States Armed Forces and one of the seven U.S. uniformed
>> services.
>
> We're talking about the time of the writing of the Constitution, Curly.
No *we* aren't. Neither of us, until now. *You* said "...the Coast
Guard is a revenue-policing service". The government, and wikipedia,
say: "The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a branch of the United
States Armed Forces and one of the seven U.S. uniformed services."
> The Coast Guard was established as a revenue service to police merchant
> ships. It was later called the Revenue Cutter Service. It was joined to
> the Lifesaving Service, and for many years was a combination of those
> two services, neither of which was founded as a military unit.
More irrelevant distraction which has absolutely nothing to do with my
statement.
>> The Coast Guard is a maritime, military, multi-mission service unique
>> among the military branches for having a maritime law enforcement
>> mission (with jurisdiction in both domestic and international waters)
>> and a federal regulatory agency mission as part of its mission set. It
>> operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime,
>> and can be transferred to the Department of the Navy by the President
>> at any time or Congress during time of war."
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard
>>
>>> Third, you've already lost on your interpretation of the Constitution
>>> in this regard.
>>
>> Opinion noted. Given the erroneous statements above I don't give much
>> credence to this claim either.
>
> Neither of my statements was erroneous. You've rather foolishly quoted
> descriptions of what they are *today*, when we were talking about their
> founding and their civilian control by the commander in chief and the
> Congress.
Both your claims are wrong, that the the Marine Corps is division of the
Navy and that "the Coast Guard is a revenue-policing service". Both are
individual military services as is the Air Force.
Only the Navy is Constitutionally granted continuous service and all
other powers are reserved to the several states.
>>> Like a fundamentalist Christian who
>>> believes only in his own reading of the Bible, you seem to be adamant
>>> in your understanding of the words. Most people, including the Supreme
>>> Court, don't agree with you.
>>
>> When arguments fail do you usually stoop to ad hominems?
>
> You seem to have the Usenet's scattershot definition of ad hominem. An
> ad hominem is an argument about some irrelevant characteristic -- such
> as, you're not credible about Constitutional history because you beat
> your wife. d8-)
>
> If I say that your reading is not accurate because you have made arch
> and idiosyncratic interpretations of the Constitution, that's not ad
> hominem. The key to ad hominem is that the criticism must be irrelevant
> to the point being discussed. I'm just commenting on the nature of your
> interpretations themselves. That is not ad hominem.
No, you asserted biblical metaphors to me rather than pursuing the
debate, that is indeed a ad homenim. If you don't like being called on
it then don't do that.
>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>> if you're going to get into a snit about the standing army, how
>>>>>>> about the navy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop picking ridiculous nits.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, the navy is a ridiculous nit?
>>>>
>>>> No, your nits are ridiculous.
>>>
>>> You haven't answered the question about why the president isn't
>>> commander in chief of the navy, all of the time. Instead, you're
>>> tossing out adjectives.
>>
>> When did you pose that question and why do you think I should answer
>> your distractions?
>
> You're the one who said the president is only commander in chief during
> "actual service," whatever you mean by that: "Only 'when called into the
> actual service of the United States" is an army, navy or militia
> allowed.'" To which I responded that the navy is always in the actual
> service of the United States, at which point you began spinning like a
> top.
Now you're making shit up. Show where I said what you claim.
You cannot, that is a lie.
>>>>>>> Your reading of Section 2 is arch and has no grammatical basis. It
>>>>>>> also is illogical, because it is the militia, not the army or
>>>>>>> navy, that is only called into federal service in wartime -- or in
>>>>>>> cases of civil insurrection, as with the Whiskey Rebellion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not according to the clear words above, and here: "The President
>>>>>> shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
>>>>>> States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
>>>>>> the actual Service of the United States..."
>>>>>
>>>>> Your reading of it makes no sense. The navy was always in service.
>>>>> When there is an army (always, now), they are always in service.
>>>>
>>>> There is your illogical leap.
>>>
>>> Where is it illogical?
>>
>> "When there is an army (always, now), they are always in service."
>>
>>> Don't give us twisted libertarian "logic." Stick to the words of the
>>> Constitution. If Congress can re-fund the army every two years, and
>>> keeps doing so, what do you have except a de facto standing army?
>>
>> "De facto" is an end-run on Constitutional limitations. You may be
>> fine with violating the very words, meanings and intent but I am not.
>
> There is no Constitutional limitation, except that Congress must fund
> the army at least every two years. The "no standing army" is not a part
> of the Constitution. Nor was it universally agreed. Even the
> anti-federalists said no *large* standing army. But they didn't get that
> written into the Constitution, either.
A standing army is not authorized by the Constitution.
You have a fuzzy view of the Constitution and only support it where you
like. The Constitution is not a buffet, you don't get to pick and
choose. Or ignore those parts you don't like.
If you don't like it then change the Constitution. Neither you nor the
politicians in charge get to violate the Constitution with impunity. You
and they may have the power to prevent being held to the law but that
only compounds the violation and disrespect of both.
That is what tears apart our nation at this very moment. When some
classes of people are permitted to violate the Constitution while others
are prosecuted, even persecuted, the inequality tears apart our nation.
You may like that, I do not.
Where either came from is not the issue. The Air Force, Marines and
Coast Guard are separate branches of the military contrary to your
statements and distractions.
>>> The Coast Guard was a revenue police force.
>>
>> And lizards are the offspring of dinosaurs. Today the Coast Guard is
>> one of the seven branches of the United States Military. Stop living
>> in the past and adhere to the rule of law.
>
> Oh, I thought we were talking about the Constitution.
If so then why bring up irrelevant distractions?
> That was written
> far in the past. Does today's Coast Guard somehow violate the
> Constitution, in your idiosyncratic view? How about the Air Force? Is
> that a violation?
Does the Constitution, including Amendments, authorize a standing
military other than the Navy? Of course not. You're capable of
answering your own ridiculous questions so why ask?
>> By continuously shading events and
>> law to justify your belief structure you can, indeed, create an
>> artificial reality bubble but that has little impact on the reality we
>> all share.
>
> Uh, I don't think you share the same reality with most of us. <g> The
> reality is that we have, and have always had, a standing navy;
That has never been in question.
> that the
> army is no violation of the Constitution;
Bullshit.
> and that other branches of the
> military service have grown out of them, or in the case of the Coast
> Guard, have become attached to them.
Another irrelevant distraction. None of the other four branches are
authorized a standing service by the Constitution.
> That's reality. What reality are you involved with? Are you saying we're
> all living in Constitional sin? <g>
I've demonstrated that you advocate ignoring the Constitution when it
serves your purposes. That is not a position that I respect. In fact I
denounce it as traitorous.
>> The Constitution does not permit a standing Army and there are seven
>> branches of the military. Only one is authorized by the Constitution
>> to exist continuously.
>
> Is this the libertarian spin? Do you have your own, special version of
> the Constitution that says Congress can't re-fund the army every two
> years?
Where does the Constitution authorize a standing army?
It doesn't and your, and Congress' end-run pervert the law of the land.
>>> They can be called into military service in time of war. I'm not
>>> getting into the NHS, because there are limits to how far I'll stray.
>>> d8-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> A standing army is not authorized in this passage, only an
>>>>>> "on-demand" military. Do you have another reference which might
>>>>>> support your claim?
>>>>>
>>>>> See above. And you might want to read the history of the US Army. It
>>>>> will explain the change of heart about standing armies, and the
>>>>> Legion, and that the name was changed to the Army, and that Congress
>>>>> just kept re-funding it.
>>>>
>>>> You misunderstand. I'm not against a standing army, as long as
>>>> severe limitations are in place. I'm against violating the
>>>> Constitution for any reason or rationalization. If you don't like
>>>> the law then change it but do not violate the law.
>>>
>>> No violation is involved. Congress just keeps re-funding it, in
>>> compliance with Article II.
>>
>> A regrettably legal end-run on the clear words and meaning of the
>> Constitution.
>
> Those are the words and "meaning" you've created in your imagination.
Yet you are unable to show where the Constitution allows a standing
army. In fact you've admitted that there is no such authorization and
that Congress had to create a standing army by the defacto method.
> The Constitution left open the question of how Congress may fund the
> army, as long as no individual funding exceeds two years.
Which is not a Constitutional authorization of a standing army.
>> Again, you are obviously fine with legal shenanigans concerning the
>> Constitution and rule of law.
>
> And you are obviously among the deadest of Dead Constitutionalists.
> What's interesting is that I'm far from being a Living
> Constitutionalist. It's just that I'm not as dead about it as you are.
> d8-)
>
> Again, if you study the history of the ideas about a standing army, the
> country had pretty much changed its mind about it before 1800. An
> Amendment might have been in order, but it wasn't needed. Congress
> already had the authority to fund the army every two years, and to keep
> it going. So they did.
Now you're on the right track. Do things the right, legal, way instead
of violating the law. Pass the required Amendment.
No, you do not. You, and the politicians have only coercion on your side.
You sound like Neville Chamberlin.
>> I'm not.
>>
>>>> That is the basis of many of our current ills. When the Federal
>>>> government is allowed to violate the law without repercussion then
>>>> our nation has died and merely twitches in death spasms.
>>>
>>> That's another argument; one that could go on forever.
>>
>> No, it's part of the same discussion. You are part of the problem, not
>> the solution, for perpetuating the ever expanding sleeze factor in
>> evading the clear meaning of our Constitution.
>
> Pffhhht. It's been my main intellectual hobby for 35 years. I'll be glad
> to deal with your idiosyncratic interpretations any time.
No doubt with more evasion and distractions from the original intent too.
Ed Huntress
<gag> I'm not buying that in those terms, but Ok, carry on...
>
> The Enlightenment spoke to the expansion of thought and reasoning,
> not government largesse.
>
> Yes, you can quote me.
I'm not sure why I would, but there isn't much to argue with, so far. The
Enlightenment "spoke" to more than that, (Hobbes and Bentham would disagree
sharply with you), but Ok.
>
>
> The libertarian thought complex can be summed from Jefferson's
> "Declaration of Independence." In this we see the basis for the
> formula for inherent and unalienable Rights, an exercise of
> individual power which cannot be legitimately removed by a king
> or government because such power did not originate with either.
Ok.
>
> This power is demonstrated by the Rule of Rights: A Right is an action
> or actions by one individual which do NOT infringe on another
> individual's Rights OR place an obligation on that individual.
>
> Pure Jeffersonian.
Hmmm....Ok...
>
>
>
> 1776 - 1820s...
>
>
> 1. There was no income tax or central bank. Attempts were roundly
> defeated.
>
> 2. Taxes were minimal everywhere. Some jurisdictions taxed whiskey,
> and certain exports and imports and the voting citizen's estate.
> Wars were funded through volunteerism and special taxes.
>
> 3. There were no welfare programs. The concept didn't exist and
> legislators openly ridiculed government grants.
>
> 4. The were no state or federal entitlements. In fact the original
> 13th amendment found in the Virginia law books specifically
> prohibited anyone running for office who had a title of nobility
> or other presumption of entitlement.
>
> 5. There was no general plan of education. This is a 1880s concept
> fostered by Bellamy and other Fabian socialists.
Uh, also by Jefferson, Madison, et al., a century earlier. I've provided the
relevant quote from Jefferson in an earlier post. Here's Madison:
"The liberal appropriations made by the Legislature of Kentucky for a
general system of Education cannot be too much applauded. A popular
Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is
but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will
forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors,
must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." -- Letter to Wm.
Taylor Barry, 1822
Madison, like Jefferson, favored tax-supported general education -- at the
state level. This is another case in which the writings of the Founders on
the limits of federal powers often mislead people into thinking that they
generally did not favor "public works" or tax-supported general education.
As the two quotes I've provided show, this is not true. They just thought it
was the business of the states.
I could try to draw a fine line between late-18th-century classical
liberalism and early 19th-century neo-classical liberalism, but I'd get lost
in the tangles, and I'm not really knowledgeable about the distinctions. But
this much is clear: the early, 18th century liberals were fairly progressive
and favored much more government promotion of various infrastructure and
social-betterment projects than did the neo-classicals who came along 40 or
so years later. You're right, general public education was a very
controversial issue in the 19th century. But Madison, Jefferson, and even
Adam Smith -- all of whom might be called "original" classical liberals --
strongly advocated tax-supported public education. For Smith, see _The
Wealth of Nations_ Book V, Article II, "Of the Expense of the Institution
for the Education of Youth." Scotland already had such a system. Smith was
advocating its general application in liberal, capitalist societies.
George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and others among the founders, as well
as other early liberals, all advocated free public education.
> Instead, children
> were home-schooled or apprenticed. For adults there were
> universities founded by the states and funded by religious
> institutions where students paid for room and board.
>
> 6. There were no police, prosecutors or public defenders. The 'criminal
> justice system' consisted of sheriffs, juries, judges and the
> common law.
>
> Aside from the occasional county poorhouse, about the only benefit
> offered by government was to a jail or gallows.
>
> That was while Jefferson was alive. And he didn't bitch.
Uh, I think you're misreading Jefferson. He was in favor of public
education, as we've seen, and you'll see references in his writings to
public works that were necessary to support the economy.
>
> That was minimal government. That was liberal. That was terrific.
Jeez, I'll bet that you laughed all the way through Dante's _Inferno_. <g>
Jefferson did indeed bitch about the state of many things, but that wasn't
the issue. As for your characterization of laws and life in Jefferson's
time, you might want to read his _Notes on the State of Virginia_. He lists
laws and regulations that some would think excessive today: limits on
interest that could be charged for debts (10% or 5%, depending on the type);
forfeiture of claims for gambling debts (there go your contracts....);
government inspection of beef, tobacco, turpentine, and other commodities
before they could be sold; etc., etc.
But the laws are not the same as liberal thinking, which varied considerably
among the early liberals. The hyper-individualism you favor, which is more
like anarchism than liberalism, was not the same as the liberties and rights
that Locke, Hume, Jefferson, or the other liberals born of the Enlightenment
had in mind. Aside from intrusions on their basic list of human rights, they
left it up to the democratic process (except for Bentham, Hobbes, and Hume,
who didn't think much of self-governance at all).
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Curly, you've made such hash of this whole discussion, by not clipping, that
you don't even seem to be able to find what you said yourself. YOU brought
up contracts, not me:
>>>>> Yes, there are problems. That Constitutional restriction is broken
>>>>> on an annual basis. Each contract greater than 2 years violates the
>>>>> clear words and intent of the Constitution.
A couple of rounds later, you say this:
> I have mentioned no "contract", stop already with the distractions and
> bullshit.
Jesus. Either you're arguing for the sake of argument, or you've thoroughly
confused yourself.
As for the navy and the Marines, as I said, the Marines were put under the
Dept. of the Navy in 1798, AND THEY'RE STILL THERE:
"The Military Departments are the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force (the Marine Corps is a part of the Department of the Navy)."
http://www.defense.gov/OrgChart/office.aspx?id=3
(That's not Wikipedia saying that; it's the Department of Defense)
Enough of your libertarian b.s. You guys will twist the Constitution into
knots to try to defend your wishful thinking, and invent things that aren't
there -- like the idea that the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to keep
re-funding the army.
Maybe you're right. Maybe the whole country is out to defeat your reading of
the Constitution, and you're the only one who really knows what it says.
That includes Congress, the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch, and all of
the people who didn't vote Libertarian in the last election. In other words,
just about everyone but you and enough people for a game of tag football.
Enjoy your fantasies.
--
Ed Huntress
(here's the whole unclipped mess of crap, so you won't claim I'm "hiding" it
from anyone)
jim
Strabo wrote:
>
> That was minimal government. That was liberal. That was terrific.
>
In Jefferson's day there was minimal government by default
not so much by design
because they started from nothing
You do realize that in order to implement your idea of govt
the majority has to agree
and the majority of US voters is not too keen
on returning to the beginning of the 19th century
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
> news:ilf366$lje$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:13:23 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Curly, you've made such hash of this whole discussion, by not clipping,
> that you don't even seem to be able to find what you said yourself. YOU
> brought up contracts, not me:
>
>>>>>> Yes, there are problems. That Constitutional restriction is broken
>>>>>> on an annual basis. Each contract greater than 2 years violates
>>>>>> the clear words and intent of the Constitution.
>
> A couple of rounds later, you say this:
>
>> I have mentioned no "contract", stop already with the distractions and
>> bullshit.
>
> Jesus. Either you're arguing for the sake of argument, or you've
> thoroughly confused yourself.
That is precisely what happens when you snip and paraphrase. You've
taken two unrelated threads and combined them to mean other than the
context from which you removed them.
The thread was:
>>>> Good luck with the Supreme Court. Congress can break contracts any
>>>> time it wants, and it has.
>>>
>>> No, the Constitution is not a "contract" and Congress cannot break it
>>> "any time it wants." A ridiculous assertion.
Note that I referred to the Constitution denying your assertion that it
was a "contract" which Congress could break. *YOU* inserted "contract",
not I.
This is what happens when you snip and take dialog out of context.
You're doing an admirable job of distracting and confusing what began as
a simple debate, that there is no Constitutional authority for a standing
army, and turned it into an ad homenim attack.
> As for the navy and the Marines, as I said, the Marines were put under
> the Dept. of the Navy in 1798, AND THEY'RE STILL THERE:
>
> "The Military Departments are the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air
> Force (the Marine Corps is a part of the Department of the Navy)."
>
> http://www.defense.gov/OrgChart/office.aspx?id=3
>
> (That's not Wikipedia saying that; it's the Department of Defense)
>
> Enough of your libertarian b.s. You guys will twist the Constitution
> into knots to try to defend your wishful thinking, and invent things
> that aren't there -- like the idea that the Constitution doesn't allow
> Congress to keep re-funding the army.
>
> Maybe you're right. Maybe the whole country is out to defeat your
> reading of the Constitution, and you're the only one who really knows
> what it says. That includes Congress, the Supreme Court, the Executive
> Branch, and all of the people who didn't vote Libertarian in the last
> election. In other words, just about everyone but you and enough people
> for a game of tag football.
>
> Enjoy your fantasies.
While you madly create another distraction be aware that there still is
no Constitutional authority for a standing army.
Shall not be infringed
> Strabo wrote:
>
> > That was minimal government. That was liberal. That was terrific.
>
> In Jefferson's day there was minimal government by default
> not so much by design
> because they started from nothing
Actually, they started with the world's largest government. Then they
revolted.
> You do realize that in order to implement your idea of govt
> the majority has to agree
> and the majority of US voters is not too keen
> on returning to the beginning of the 19th century
That's good to know. So when radical Islam tries to take us back even
further...
Ed Huntress
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 05:19:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>> news:ilf366$lje$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:13:23 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> Curly, you've made such hash of this whole discussion, by not clipping,
>> that you don't even seem to be able to find what you said yourself. YOU
>> brought up contracts, not me:
>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there are problems. That Constitutional restriction is broken
>>>>>>> on an annual basis. Each contract greater than 2 years violates
>>>>>>> the clear words and intent of the Constitution.
>>
>> A couple of rounds later, you say this:
>>
>>> I have mentioned no "contract", stop already with the distractions and
>>> bullshit.
>>
>> Jesus. Either you're arguing for the sake of argument, or you've
>> thoroughly confused yourself.
>
> That is precisely what happens when you snip and paraphrase. You've
> taken two unrelated threads and combined them to mean other than the
> context from which you removed them.
Uh, it was the same thread, and I said "contract" in response to your use of
"contract".
Oh, forget it. Believe what you want.
So, they sit down once every two years and then stand up again.
--
Ed Huntress
jim
Shall not be infringed wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 8:10 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> > Strabo wrote:
> >
> > > That was minimal government. That was liberal. That was terrific.
> >
> > In Jefferson's day there was minimal government by default
> > not so much by design
> > because they started from nothing
>
> Actually, they started with the world's largest government. Then they
> revolted.
Yes and the various states had working govts in place
but the FEDS had essentially nothing.
>
> > You do realize that in order to implement your idea of govt
> > the majority has to agree
> > and the majority of US voters is not too keen
> > on returning to the beginning of the 19th century
>
> That's good to know. So when radical Islam tries to take us back even
> further...
Islam would leave you alone
if you left it alone
What are your expectations when
you poke a stick into a hornets nest?
Shall not be infringed
True. We need to be gone from Iraq and Afghanistan. And Pakistan.
Wasn't Obama supposed to handle that?
jim
Yes. That is what he said he was supposed to do
John R. Carroll
Actually, that was the Bush team's promise and it wasn't going to be very
expensive at all!
At least those were the statements being made in testimony before the
Congress and to the public before we actually went in.
--
John R. Carroll
Shall not be infringed
Actaully you're wrong.
Bush said he was going to get us in there.
He did that.
Obama said he was going to get us out.
He didn't do that.
> At least those were the statements being made in testimony before the
> Congress and to the public before we actually went in.
Prove it. Show the cite, show the conditions under which we would get
out, the time line, and the cost.
John R. Carroll
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to
provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take
to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of
Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to imagine."
--Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz,
testifying before Congress Feb. 27, 2003
"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
--President GW Bush,
discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat
Robertson,
after Robertson told him he should prepare the American
people
for the reality of war casualties
.
"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to
last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III."
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claiming the Iraq
war wouldn't last long.
Nov. 14, 2002
"Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very - an issue for the
future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country.
Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so
there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much
of the burden for their own reconstruction." - Ari Fleischer
"This is not Afghanistan... When we approach the question of Iraq, we
realize here is a country which has a resource. And it's obvious, it's
oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue
each year... $10, $15, even $18 billion... this is not a broke
country." - Richard Armitage
"There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S.
taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people...
and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could
bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or
three years... We're dealing with a country that can really finance
its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." - Paul Wolfowitz
"If you (worry about just) the cost, the money, Iraq is a very
different situation from Afghanistan... Iraq has oil. They have
financial resources." - Donald Rumsfeld
"On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the
responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7
billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq... and
unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the
development fund." - Alan Larson
"I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for
reconstruction, in a sense... (Reconstruction) funds can come from
those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a
variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very
substantial number of billions of dollars in it. - Donald Rumsfeld
--
John R. Carroll
Curly Surmudgeon
George W. Bush and the Iraq War
The 2003 Iraq War was begun mostly by the efforts of United States
President George W. Bush.
Beginning at his January 29, 2002 State of the Union address, President
Bush began publicly focusing attention on Iraq, which he labeled as part
of an "axis of evil" allied with terrorists and posing "a grave and
growing danger" to U.S. interests through possession of "weapons of mass
destruction".[1] In the latter half of 2002, Central Intelligence Agency
reports requested by the Administration contained assertions that Saddam
Hussein was intent on reconstituting nuclear weapons programs, had not
properly accounted for Iraqi biological weapons and chemical weapons
material in violation of UN sanctions, and that some Iraqi missiles had a
range greater than allowed by the UN sanctions.[2] In particular, the CIA
drew together an October 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's
Weapons of Mass Destruction, pulling together the intelligence,
estimations, opinions and judgments of 16 different U.S. intelligence
services, including dissenting views or challenges to various assertions.
Several versions of this report were or have been produced with varying
levels of declassification, inclusion of dissenting opinions, and
completeness.[3] President Bush received a one-page summary of the
National Intelligence Estimate.[4] The question of whether the Bush
Administration manipulated or exaggerated the threat and evidence of
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities or attempted to create a
tie between Sadaam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorists who carried out
the September 11, 2001 attacks would eventually become a major point of
criticism and controversy for the President.[5]
President Bush, with Naval Flight Officer Lieutenant Ryan Philips, in the
flight suit he wore for his televised arrival and speech aboard the USS
Abraham Lincoln in 2003.
In late 2002 and early 2003, President Bush urged the United Nations to
enforce Iraqi disarmament mandates, precipitating a diplomatic crisis. On
November 13, 2002, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Hans Blix
and Mohamed ElBaradei led UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. There was
controversy over the efficacy of inspections and lapses in Iraqi
compliance. UN inspection teams departed Iraq upon U.S. advisement given
four days prior to the U.S. invasion, despite their requests for more
time to complete their tasks.[6] The U.S. initially sought a UN Security
Council resolution authorizing the use of military force pursuant to
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.[7] Upon facing vigorous
opposition from several nations (primarily France and Germany), however,
the U.S. dropped the bid for UN approval and began to prepare for war;
Benjamin Ferencz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials
argued that for these actions Bush, with his Administration, could be
prosecuted for war crimes.[8] Kofi Annan, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as well
as leaders of several nations made similar statements, implying that the
attack constitutes a war crime.[9]
In order to comply with the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution by Congress, on March 18, 2003, President Bush
certified to Congress that he had "determined that: (1) reliance by the
United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will
neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public
Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists
and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."[10]
The war effort was joined by more than 20 other nations (most notably the
United Kingdom and Australia) who the Bush Administration designated the
"coalition of the willing".[11] The invasion of Iraq commenced on March
20, 2003, ostensibly to pre-empt Iraqi WMD deployment and remove Saddam
from power. The Iraqi military was quickly defeated. The capital,
Baghdad, fell on April 9, 2003. On May 1, 2003, President Bush declared
the end of major combat operations in Iraq in a speech from the deck of
the USS Abraham Lincoln. This speech would become known as his "Mission
Accomplished" speech due to a banner with that slogan in view overhead.
At the outset of the speech, President Bush stated: "Major combat
operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States
and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in
securing and reconstructing that country. In this battle, we have fought
for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world."[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_and_the_Iraq_War
Curly Surmudgeon
While Obama failed we cannot lose sight that the Republicans and Neocons
started this catastrophe. Democrats failed to halt the war then and now.
Both parties failed us yet the sycophants still waste oxygen blaming each
other...
jim
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>
> While Obama failed we cannot lose sight that the Republicans and Neocons
> started this catastrophe. Democrats failed to halt the war then and now.
>
> Both parties failed us yet the sycophants still waste oxygen blaming each
> other...
>
Yup. although its probably all the aerobic exercise
they get so its not a complete waste.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>
>
Jefferson was a Classical Liberal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
The Left today tries to push Social Liberalism...a quasi Socialistic
brand of buffoonery
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Islam has absolutely no intention of leaving us alone.
Its not part of the tenants of New Wahabism
We can sit back and wait for them to come and destroy us, or we can
destroy them while they are still weak.
Your choice.
Gunner
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
So says the Conservative Parasite who lives only because of the "quasi
Socialistic brand of buffoonery" of Liberals.
So whose WiFi are you stealing tonight Gummer?
TMT
jim
> >
> >Yes. That is what he said he was supposed to do
>
> Islam has absolutely no intention of leaving us alone.
>
> Its not part of the tenants of New Wahabism
>
> We can sit back and wait for them to come and destroy us, or we can
> destroy them while they are still weak.
>
I'm sure you also believed the guys in black pajamas in Viet Nam were
going to swim across the Pacific Ocean and slit are throats in the
middle of the night if we didn't go over there and kill them first.
pyotr filipivich
<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> reported Elvis on Wed, 23 Mar 2011
07:26:27 -0500 in misc.survivalism:
I doubt he did, but I'm sure that is what you believe he thought.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Just when you think you see the light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a 900lb gorilla with a flashlight!!
pyotr filipivich
<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> reported Elvis on Wed, 23 Mar 2011
07:26:27 -0500 in misc.survivalism:
Oh, by the way, nice attempt to change the subject.
The fact remains that the Left is enthralled with those who would
kill them. They just love the Muslim Brotherhood (et al), never mind
that the MB would kill all the gays and treat women as second class
persons (at best). (Because that is what Sharia law requires.)
Do you have a solution to avoid importing those who do not believe
in your "multi-culturalism" and want you to follow their rules?
jim
>
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that jim
> <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> reported Elvis on Wed, 23 Mar 2011
> 07:26:27 -0500 in misc.survivalism:
> >> >Yes. That is what he said he was supposed to do
> >>
> >> Islam has absolutely no intention of leaving us alone.
> >>
> >> Its not part of the tenants of New Wahabism
> >>
> >> We can sit back and wait for them to come and destroy us, or we can
> >> destroy them while they are still weak.
> >>
> >
> >I'm sure you also believed the guys in black pajamas in Viet Nam were
> >going to swim across the Pacific Ocean and slit are throats in the
> >middle of the night if we didn't go over there and kill them first.
>
> Oh, by the way, nice attempt to change the subject.
I'm sorry did I change the subject? Was the subject Wahabism?
That Wahabis are a small tribal sect that no one would have ever heard
of if the British had not promoted them the rulers of Saudia Arabia.
Strabo
Muslims invaded southwestern Europe and attempted to overcome the
remainder until they were kicked out.
Muslims invaded Africa where they captured and sold slaves for
centuries.
Yes, the British, French and Germans instigated conflict in the
Middle East and sided with cooperating tribes. Yes, the entire
region should have been contained and placed off-limits. But
now the die is cast.
Empire after empire, war after war, Islam has displayed over 1000 years
of predatory expansion. It is an aggressive kill-take-no-prisoners
ideology masked as a religion of which Wahabism just happens to be a
modern revival. Wahabis could disappear tomorrow and it would have
little effect on the billion+ followers of Islam.
Further, Islam is antithetical to the laws and nature of western
societies. No Muslim can live happily in the US. Their beliefs are
that alien.
jim
Not any different than the Christian imperial expansion.
>It is an aggressive kill-take-no-prisoners
> ideology masked as a religion of which Wahabism just happens to be a
> modern revival. Wahabis could disappear tomorrow and it would have
> little effect on the billion+ followers of Islam.
The vast majority of muslims would be very pleased to see the Wahabis
disappear.
>
> Further, Islam is antithetical to the laws and nature of western
> societies. No Muslim can live happily in the US. Their beliefs are
> that alien.
You have invented the perfect enemy.
Strabo
> Strabo wrote:
>>
>> On 3/23/2011 1:28 PM, jim wrote:
>>> pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>>
>> Yes, the British, French and Germans instigated conflict in the
>> Middle East and sided with cooperating tribes. Yes, the entire
>> region should have been contained and placed off-limits. But
>> now the die is cast.
>>
>> Empire after empire, war after war, Islam has displayed over 1000 years
>> of predatory expansion.
>
> Not any different than the Christian imperial expansion.
>
>
>
>> It is an aggressive kill-take-no-prisoners
>> ideology masked as a religion of which Wahabism just happens to be a
>> modern revival. Wahabis could disappear tomorrow and it would have
>> little effect on the billion+ followers of Islam.
>
> The vast majority of muslims would be very pleased to see the Wahabis
> disappear.
>
Screw the Wahabis. The Koran and interpretive doctrines are their law.
>
>>
>> Further, Islam is antithetical to the laws and nature of western
>> societies. No Muslim can live happily in the US. Their beliefs are
>> that alien.
>
> You have invented the perfect enemy.
>
Self-evident.
No Muslim who believes in Islam can say that he agrees with or can
support the culture, customs, laws and values of the US. In many cases
values are opposite. That's Sharia law.
There may be some Muslims ignorant of the Koran and who don't
pay attention to clerics. In which case they would be killed by other
Muslims.
Jeff M
> The fact remains that the Left is enthralled with those who would
> kill them. They just love the Muslim Brotherhood (et al)
Where do you guys come up with these sorts of false premises that were
merely slanders of of your ideological opponents and never meant to be
serious political reasoning, that somehow came to underlie (and
illustrate the falsity of) so many of your core beliefs? Were they
inspired by your deep admiration for, and emulation of the methodology
of, Hitler and Goebbels? Did they just pop into your mind while you
were busy torturing kittens? Were they perhaps suggested by something
one of the children you were molesting said? You do understand the
difference between a jab at and an actual insight about your opponents,
don't you?