What war?

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 18:06
VIEWED: 5092
PAGE 2 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

HERO

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
As far as illegal/unconstitutional, doing 70mph in a 55mph is illegal, but not unconstitutional, while violating someones fourth amendment rights may be "legal" but is still unconstitutional.

The Constitution is the foundation upon which the criminal code is based, therefore violation of a criminal law is unConstitutional. That's why a person can be found not guilty of a violation of the law and then retried on Constitutional grounds without violating double jeapordy. In your example State Constitutions vest the right to set traffic laws in the State legislature, which then sets uniform laws for the state (and often allows local jurisdictions to set local laws for themselves).

Quote:

The UN's regulations about wars of aggression, and remember we ARE still part of the UN and have not withdrawn from it, nor have they kicked us out, although I can't imagine why one or the other hasn't occured by now.. make it illegal.

Except that the UN has authorized US military actions in Iraq and Afganistan.

Quote:

Violation of the Constitutions requirement for a formal declaration makes it unconstitutional, as does the geneva conventions rules, since the constitution makes any signed treaty equal to itself in authority.

The President and the Senate cannot by treaty usurp constitutional authority. Treaties have legal standing, but are not the equal of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land. You really think we can sign a treaty with...say Iran and suddenly all women lose the right to vote. I think not. Such a treaty, should it be signed and ratified would by unConstitutional.

Quote:

When I called it an illegal, undeclared, unconstitutional war - I meant *exactly* that, I am not some slimy doublespeaking combine lawyer, just a pissed off semi-retired cabbie.

Yeah, I know what you meant. I understand you may not be a lawyer, but your certainly no Constitutional scholar and have little knowledge, much less sense of the history of the Constitution or legal precedents.

I, on the other hand, note for the record the continued use of authorizing resolutions for undeclared war going back the the Barbury wars which started in 1801.

Quote:

An Act for the Protection of the Commerce and Seamen of the United States, Against the Tripolitan Cruisers.
"... it shall be lawful fully to equip, officer, man, and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite by the President of the United States, for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.

"...to subdue, seize and make prize of all vessels, goods and effects, belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, or to his subjects,... and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify, and may, in his opinion, require."

(Feb. 6, 1802.)

I further note that the Marshall Court fully supported this as a logical part of Congress' implied powers. That actually comes from a decision regarding the undeclared war with France in 1798.

H

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 9:12 PM

"Yeah, I know what you meant. I understand you may not be a lawyer, but your certainly no Constitutional scholar and have little knowledge, much less sense of the history of the Constitution or legal precedents."

Are you shittin me ?

What fucking dope are you SMOKING, Hero ? or has the pressure of being the jackboot of the state finally warped your little mind until it cracked ?

I can practically quote it, tell you who wrote what and why, and then show you in their own words what the fuck they meant, while you spend all day at work shitting on it and trying to warp it's intent and meaning.

Show me where the founders intended us to have a standing army.
Show me where ANY search without a warrant is allowed or encouraged.
Show me where secret tribunals are allowed or encouraged.
Show me where it is acceptable at ANY time to not have a Jury.
Show me where jury loading is acceptable, mister prosecutor!

Explain to me how TWO YEARS of confinement under a bail that constitutes more than 150% of the sum of the assets of the accused, followed by a fine of over 300% of that amount does not effectively violate it.

And while you're at it, show me anywhere in Amendment Two where it specifies specific types of "arms" and allows forbiddance or infringement.

And you dare to preface this... with a statement that proves to me that you've probably never even read that 'goddamn piece of paper' as your heros call it.

"The President and the Senate cannot by treaty usurp constitutional authority. Treaties have legal standing, but are not the equal of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land."

Is that so ?
Perhaps you missed THIS little bit under Article Six.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

And don't bother quoting the Marshall Court to me, a court decision can NOT overturn the Constitution, nor redefine any of it's terms, and the term "implied powers" does not whatsoever exist within the document, which quite explicitly states in Article Ten.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution gives "few and limited" powers to the FedGov, and if it is not expressly stated within the document itself that they have a Power or Authority...
THEY DO NOT HAVE IT.
Period.

This nonsense about "implied" powers is naught more than a dodge based on the ridiculous assumption that the courts can redefine what the constitution or it's terms mean, but they have jurisdiction WITHIN it, not over it, as clearly explained in Article Three, Section Two.

So, in short and summary - Fuck You.

The next time you shoot off your mouth, maybe check the loadout in your head first.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 9:30 PM

Gentlemen on both sides,

We can attack the arguments without attacking the man.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 11:42 PM

Who you callin a Gentleman? sure as hell ain't me...

We could do that, sure, but in this case I choose not to, I've really had enough of politely listening to this jackboot ramble on about how tyranny is necessary, especially combined with the fact that his career and finances benefit from it, while watching him and his ilk accuse folks of "Ad Hominem" just for pointing that out.

If you wanna get all technical, my tearing a strip off the ole boy isn't even ad hominem... as it is properly an argumentum ad personam and completely justifiable, although likely not in the manner I chose to phrase it, because he is a willing cog in the machinery whos actions he wishes to justify, and therefore any of his testimony to that effect is suspect due to it's source, muchlike a budwiser batch supervisor telling you beer is good for you.

I can be really vicious when provoked, and squatting over the one tattered and failing object that's the only thing between America the Beautiful and Amerika the 4th Reich, intending to take a dump on it, is one thing sure to piss me off in a hurry, as is cheering on those intending to do such a thing.

Given his own former conduct and statements in RWED, I do not feel any obligation whatsoever to be nice to him, or even polite - in fact, I feel a certain *obligation* to be downright crass when addressing him directly, to be honest about it.

Given previous RWED topics and discussions, the first phrase that I quoted was either maliciously disingenuous, or so completely clueless as to be inexcuseable, and truthfully, I do not think he is clueless or stupid and thus took it for the studied and deliberate insult it was.

And yes, I felt he deserved a boot to the yarbles for it, and so I gave him one, or two, or six...

Making a crack like that in my direction is right up there with "My grandma, what big teeth you have!" and what happens soon after is both very similar and every bit as predictable.

-F

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Making a crack like that in my direction is right up there with "My grandma, what big teeth you have!" and what happens soon after is both very similar and every bit as predictable.

-F

If I recall, what happened next was a woodsman burst into the house and killed the wolf.

My point is, if we're just going to insult each other, we'll accomplish nothing. If we use well-reasoned logic and avoid personal attacks, we may make progress. At the very least imagine the potential converts to your cause that are lost because all they see is a raving, rude, lunatic.

It is a lesson I was never able to teach Piratenews.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Yeah, I know what you meant. I understand you may not be a lawyer, but your certainly no Constitutional scholar and have little knowledge, much less sense of the history of the Constitution or legal precedents.

Hoooooo boy!

I knew that one was going to set you off Frem. Kudos to your replies.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 12:36 AM

You know, Anthony, I'm with you on the call for civility and all, but I'm also seeing something in what Frem is saying and doing here that desperately needs to be happening. It needs to be happening everywhere. Those of us who aren't quite ready to throw in the towel on the American dream need to start fighting for it or we're going to lose it. Foul language isn't much compared to taking up arms in violence, but we need to be ready to do that as well if that's what it takes to wrest our country back from these bastards.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

LEADB

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:52 AM

In my opinion, I tend to think we are no longer 'at war'. Congress authorized use of force against two nations; Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush then launched an attack against these two nations; like as not, we are then 'at war'. Both governments fell; and now we are on 'friendly terms' with the new government.

Assuming these governments last for any length of time, I'm confident that the wars will both have been deemed over for a while. For Iraq, for instance, I'm sure folks will pick one of these dates for when the war was won:
1) The fall of Baghdad
2) The capture of Saddam
3) The election of the new government

What we are doing now is 'peacekeeping' or something like that. Of course the question is, can we 'win the peace'?

HERO

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 4:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"Yeah, I know what you meant. I understand you may not be a lawyer, but your certainly no Constitutional scholar and have little knowledge, much less sense of the history of the Constitution or legal precedents."

Are you shittin me ?

Yeah. What I meant to say is that your arguments display a childish or willfull ignorance of law, the Constitution, and civil discourse.

Quote:

I can practically quote it, tell you who wrote what and why, and then show you in their own words what the fuck they meant, while you spend all day at work shitting on it and trying to warp it's intent and meaning.

I notice you very little quoting it, you tell us what you think it means and then cry about how corrupt the system is for not bowing to your ignorant ravings.

Your questions, for example, are easily answered by someone with a passing understanding of Constitution law. I, on the other hand, have studied the subject extensively.

Quote:

Show me where the founders intended us to have a standing army.

Article 1, § 8- The Power to raise and support armies and a navy, while limiting a given apporiation of funds to two years.

You'll say..."two years means no standing army" because the founders thought such armies evil. Publius then replies:

"It is not said, that standing armies SHALL NOT BE kept up, but that they OUGHT NOT to be kept up, in time of peace…The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence…The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation."- Publius, Federalist No. 26.

Thanks Publius (either Adams, Jay, or Hamilton since they were all Publius to some extent.)

Quote:

Show me where ANY search without a warrant is allowed or encouraged.

Any 1st year law student or repeat criminal offender can answer. Here's a sample:

1. Consent- no warrant is needed when the person consents to the search. And consent can be implied, for example if you have an Ohio drivers license you have consented to certain tests, including blood tests for alcohol content upon request by an Officer with reasonable articulable suspicion that you are intoxicated (and driving). If you are unconcious in a hospital following an accident, you will be tested. You have a right to revoke the consent if your concious, but doing so results in harsher penalties and is itself a crime if you have a prior OVI within 20 yrs.

2. Search incident to arrest, if your being arrested the Officer can search you.

3. Inventory search, if your being arrested the officer can search your belongings, such as your car if its being towed, to inventory the contents before transport.

4. Pat downs...aka stop and frisk, the officer can do a cursory pat down in certain circumstances (like if your being all crazy like).

5. Plain sight. If the Officer see's a dead body through your window...they can enter and do a limited search.

And on and on and so forth and with exceptions...there is so much law on search and seizure it takes an expert...like myself...to keep it all straight.

Quote:

Show me where secret tribunals are allowed or encouraged.

The general reasoning is that the Due Process Clause is the legal basis for allowing such hearings...as long as they comply with Due Process, anything goes.

The Congress can authorize them under the Elastic Clause and the President can do it under his power as Commander-in-Chief, but ultimately they both must be subject to Due Process. I suppose your talking

JUDITH

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 7:21 PM

In which Shakespeare play was "...first we kill the lawyers..."? Just asking is all. We hate 'em 'til we need 'em. Kind of like a spouse/significant other. Lawyers just frustrate those of us that don't like pickers of nits - that's all deary. It's really nothing personal.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE