10-10-2002 01:54									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: There is nothing in the Constitution that makes an undeclared war illegal. The requirement is that Congress do authorize it. If they don't want to call it a war that didn't make it illegal.

There is nothing in the Constitution about "authorizing" a war. Congress can declare war or not, but there is no legally valid "in between".

quote: They did declare war. They just chose not to call it one.

Incorrect. They did no such thing.

quote: There is no special requirement in the Constitution for declaring war. All that is needed is a simple majority and Congess gave Bush much more than a simple majority.

Yes, that is true. Congress gave Bush the authority to exercise a power possessed by neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branch - that is, the power to go to war without first declaring war. But Congress can't do that, at least not without a Constitutional Amendment. Congress doesn't have the power to authorize unconstitutional actions.

	10-10-2002 02:06									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd There is nothing in the Constitution about "authorizing" a war. Congress can declare war or not, but there is no legally valid "in between".

You are hung up one word.

quote: Incorrect. They did no such thing.

See above.

quote: Yes, that is true. Congress gave Bush the authority to exercise a power possessed by neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branch - that is, the power to go to war without first declaring war. But Congress can't do that, at least not without a Constitutional Amendment. Congress doesn't have the power to authorize unconstitutional actions.

See above.

See the US Supreme Court. Show me where they agree with you. They, not you, say what the law of the land is. No one has appointed you the power of sole arbiter of all things legal. However the US Constitution does grant that power to the the Supreme Court.

	10-10-2002 02:09									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You are hung up one word.

Maybe, but semantics in this case are very important.

quote: See the US Supreme Court. Show me where they agree with you. They, not you, say what the law of the land is. No one has appointed you the power of sole arbiter of all things legal. However the US Constitution does grant that power to the the Supreme Court.

Yes, and I happen to believe the Supreme Court is wrong. It's happened before, I'm sure we can all agree.

But if you want to use the argument that "what you say is invalid because someone in authority disagrees with you", or "you're right because someone in authority agrees with you", then what the hell is the point of discussions like these to begin with?

	10-10-2002 02:11									#34
	Inflate your Upload Space

I am sure that the US has done some pretty evil things that is why I made that comment about Saddam defecting.

The US is, however, lucky that we are rather powerful insofarasmuch as we are able to not only set the rules but change them at any time we want. Something that is horrid, but true. Unfortunatly for Saddam, Iraq was not that powerful, and should of played by the current rules (call Boyle for the complete handbook) to begin with. Now that he has not, big brother is going to step in. We already gave him a 15 yard penalty, he now needs to be ejected from the game.

Is this morally wrong? No. It is the way of the world and the way of humanity; if it threatens you, attack it. If it tries to kill you, try and kill it back. Where are the morals in war? The mighty will win, and in time it will be right. For in the end the victors write the history books.

Do you ever wonder why the meek shall INHERIT the earth?

	10-10-2002 02:19									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: The US is, however, lucky that we are rather powerful insofarasmuch as we are able to not only set the rules but change them at any time we want. Something that is horrid, but true. Unfortunatly for Saddam, Iraq was not that powerful, and should of played by the current rules (call Boyle for the complete handbook) to begin with. Now that he has not, big brother is going to step in. We already gave him a 15 yard penalty, he now needs to be ejected from the game.

So all you are saying is that the strong set the rules, and everyone else should go by them. Therefore, if Nazi Germany won WW2, we should all follow their rules, because their rules would be "right" on the basis of "might". Correct?

quote: Is this morally wrong? No. It is the way of the world and the way of humanity; if it threatens you, attack it. If it tries to kill you, try and kill it back. Where are the morals in war? The mighty will win, and in time it will be right. For in the end the victors write the history books.

Will you at least accept the statement that the strong can set immoral "rules"?

	10-10-2002 02:22									#36
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Yes, and I happen to believe the Supreme Court is wrong. It's happened before, I'm sure we can all agree.

Do let me know when you something in the Constitution that says 'David Floyd is the sole arbiter of the Constitution'.

quote: But if you want to use the argument that "what you say is invalid because someone in authority disagrees with you", or "you're right because someone in authority agrees with you", then what the hell is the point of discussions like these to begin with?

I am merely pointing out that you were wrong in claiming the Gulf War was neither a war nor legal. It was a war. It was called one. The semantic issue is an attempt to make an issue where there is none. The US has gone to war without declaring one before. It has never been found to be illegal and the Supreme Court has had ample time to make a decision on the issue.

The President did not decare war so he broke no law. Congress funded his actions so he still broke no law. Nothing in the Constitution requires a declared a war. All it says is that the power to declare a war is held by Congress. If one is not declared then there is nothing in Constitution covering it.

Pertinent clauses

quote: To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Nothing there actually requires the specific use of the word "war". Simply that the power is reserved to Congress and it was Congress that acted.

	10-10-2002 02:26									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Whether or not one believes Saddam, there's certainly no reason whatever to believe the US government. US administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have lied so relentlessly on the subject of Iraq over the past two decades that disbelieving anything they say should be one's default position.

Beyond that, of course, is the fact that all governments lie when they are eager to go to war. Any American who is old enough to remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as I am, does not have the moral right to accept the administration's word without corroborating evidence (and strong evidence).

The Bush administration has consistently refused to make a coherent argument. To the contrary; as one White House staffer was quoted in Time magazine last week, "we're going to throw everything at [Saddam], and see what sticks." That pretty much sums up their entire argument to date.

	10-10-2002 02:26									#38
	Remove this text

quote: . Therefore, if Nazi Germany won WW2, we should all follow their rules, because their rules would be "right" on the basis of "might". Correct?

I don't want to play the what if game, but yes.

quote: Will you at least accept the statement that the strong can set immoral "rules"?

Haven't I already? Do I need to say it out loud? Yet, what does the decission in going to war have to do with morality? There is NO right or wrong answer here, morally. The answer must be based humanity, and the way that is addressed is by asking the question "which way will result in the least amount of lives?"

IMHO: War. Now.

	10-10-2002 02:28									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: I am merely pointing out that you were wrong in claiming the Gulf War was neither a war nor legal. It was a war. It was called one. The semantic issue is an attempt to make an issue where there is none. The US has gone to war without declaring one before. It has never been found to be illegal and the Supreme Court has had ample time to make a decision on the issue.

I think that the qualifier "In my opinion" is assumed in 99% of all Poly posts by everyone

quote: Nothing in the Constitution requires a declared a war. All it says is that the power to declare a war is held by Congress.

Actually I disagree. Congress has the sole power to declare war. Therefore, they have the sole power to create a war. If the US wants to create a war, Congress must do it. If the President bombs someone, he is in effect creating a war, but if Congress doesn't declare war first, he is violating the Constitution. War declarations, and hence war creations, are the exclusive power of Congress.

quote: Nothing there actually requires the specific use of the word "war". Simply that the power is reserved to Congress and it was Congress that acted.

And none of those powers have anything to do with wars against foreign nations, except for the clause empowering Congress to declare war.

Piracy and felonies on the high seas have nothing to do with official state actions, otherwise they would be acts of war.

Letters of marque and reprisal are simply a method of legalizing piracy in wartime. Making rules for captures on land and water is a power that, I would assume, is related to the granting of letters of marque and reprisal.

Raising armies and navies is just that.

Governing and regulating the military is also just that.

	10-10-2002 02:31									#40
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: I don't want to play the what if game, but yes.

OK. You accept the concept that might makes right in every situation, regardless of other factors. You obviously do not accept the concept of individual rights, and certainly not natural or inviolable individual rights.

Correct?

quote: Yet, what does the decission in going to war have to do with morality?

Clearly, going to war will cause people to die. That in itself brings morality into the picture, wouldn't you say?

	10-10-2002 03:41									#41
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by monkspider Not invading Iraq is the only morally correct thing to do. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."

Peace through power!

	10-10-2002 05:01									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ethelred See the US Supreme Court. Show me where they agree with you. They, not you, say what the law of the land is. No one has appointed you the power of sole arbiter of all things legal. However the US Constitution does grant that power to the the Supreme Court.

Actually, that is not true. No where in the Constituion does it grant the courts the ability to decide what is or is not the supreme law of the land. It is a power they assumed to themselves, and which almost everyone else agrees is a good thing. But it is not Constitutional. Congress could Constitutionally grant it that power, but it has never done so. It is logical to assume that that a Constitution is superior to all other laws of the land, that is, after all, the purpose of creating one and making it so difficult to change.

The Congress could, at any time, pass a bill that says that the courts may not decide the Constitutionality of a law, only the merits of a case under the pertinent law. One would hope the President would veto it. Congress could still override the veto. That would then require either a new law to overturn that law or a Constituional Amendment passed by the states. Congress hates when the states start their own initiatives, because that could lead to a convention, and then everything's up for grabs. But these are only hypotheicals. Congress is unlikely to ever do such a thing, even it if has threatened to do so in the past.

	10-10-2002 05:19									#43
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think the Constitution DOES that.

quote: Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;

The phrase "laws of the United States" seems to mean they are part of the Supreme Courts job. It should be clear both now and at the time the Constitution was written that people would occasionally pass laws that were in conflict with the Constitution. Clearly there must be a way to decide when that happens. It is also clear that the Constitution was written to limit the powers of each branch of government. If it was up to Congress to decide what laws were Constitutional then there would be no limit on the Legislative branch which is in violation of the concept of Seperation of Powers.

quote: The Congress could, at any time, pass a bill that says that the courts may not decide the Constitutionality of a law, only the merits of a case under the pertinent law. One would hope the President would veto it. Congress could still override the veto.

I think that would require a Constitutional amendment.

quote: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Even if Congress should decide a specific law should be handled by another court the Supreme Court still has appellate jurisdiction wherein it may decide upon the legality of the law in question. This is in fact how most of the Federal legal system is handled. Only a few things go straight to the Supreme Court. Most of what the Supreme Court deals with is appeals which the Constitution give the specific power to ajudicate.

	10-10-2002 05:28									#44
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

"With such exceptions, and under such regulations as Congress shall make." Congress is also charged with establishing a judiciary. Apellate power is meaningless if trial courts aren't allowed to make such decisions in the first place. And Congerss could strip it of the ability to be an appellate court in x situations.

Section two doesn't say that the courts have the ability to decide the constitutionality, only that they shall have judicial power, etc. etc.

When Marshall first made the case of the Court's ability to decide the constitutionality of laws, he didn't appeal to the Constitution itself, but rather to logic and common sense. It's probably the most important case in US history just for the judgement that the SCOTUS has that power (it was an otherwise uninteresting case involving a government appointment).

	10-10-2002 05:39									#45
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Section two doesn't say that the courts have the ability to decide the constitutionality, only that they shall have judicial power, etc. etc.

It says "both as to law and fact,". That clearly means the law itself is open to question not just facts.

quote: "With such exceptions, and under such regulations as Congress shall make." Congress is also charged with establishing a judiciary. Apellate power is meaningless if trial courts aren't allowed to make such decisions in the first place. And Congerss could strip it of the ability to be an appellate court in x situations

That one I think you are right after taking a second look. Its clearly an extremely bad idea. One I am not aware of ever being implemented. Even when both the Congress and the President have been exceeding wroth with the Supreme Court it hasn't happened. What they do instead is try a variation on the law that got knocked down.

	10-10-2002 07:04									#46
	Inflate your Upload Space

chegitz is right in that the concept of judicial review is Constitutionally....shaky, to put the best face on it, but Ethelred is right in that judicial review is a very good thing.

At least in my opinion

	10-10-2002 07:21									#47
	Support Apolyton

Yep, it's shaky. But there's good reason to believe that this particular power is implied since the idea is specifically mentioned in the Federalist papers, and certain state Supreme Courts exercised the power of judicial review prior to the drafting of the Constitution.

Besides, SCOTUS had justified certain actions by the government before the practice of review was entrenched, perhaps implying that judicial review is a power of SCOTUS.

	10-10-2002 08:06									#48
	Get a bigger avatar today!

There are a great number of reasons for disarming Saddam Hussein.

In the last century we had two world wars that cost the lives of millions of people. Because of constant march of technology it is evident that future world wars will be devestating beyond belief.

Wars tend to erupt regionally and then spread into wider conflicts. The first line of defense is to maintain regionally stability. Secondly, it is very important that the UN have a strong presence in the world so that nations will not revert to the traditional means of providing security, that being alliances with other nations. Those alliances themselves can be deterents to war, but in and of themselves they can trigger growing conflict.

The failure of the UN to evolve into an organization that can enforce its resolutions is the overriding threat to world stability in the world today.

That Iraq, and specifically Saddam Hussein's regime, is a threat to Middle Eastern stability is clear. Efforts to somehow preclude action against Iraq because other nations present potential threats completely miss the point. Iraq has been an outlaw nation for more than a decade. The UN has been engaged with Hussein's regime and if he is allowed to continue it will indeed set a terrible example that other tyrants will be certain to follow.

Replacing Saddam will not only reinforce regional stability but also put other nations on notice that the Hitler method of bully and lie will not work. Certainly, this should be done with the full approval of the UN, but if the US has to lead a limited coalition it will prove beneficial to the UN in the long run because it will cause the members of the UN to rethink its fundamental principals and change will occur. This will occur because the nations of the world cannot allow any single nation or coalition of nations to become dominant, even if it is the relatively beneign US.

Currently Saddam diverts oil profits that are mandated to be used for food to other uses, possibily even to fund WMD programs and as a result Iraqis starve. Children starve and Saddam blames the US and the UN. He clings to power through murder and oppression. He supports terrorism. He tried to ignite a regional war by launching SCUD missles at Israel in the Gulf War and would probably do that again.

Many reasons have been given as to why the US should not engage the Hussein regime. Many reasons were given for Britain and France not to engage Facsist agression in 1939.

In the end you have to fight evil sooner or later. It has always been that way, and it always will be. To those who say that Saddam is small fry and not worth the effort, I say (without necessarilly agreeing) lets draw the line with this small fry and maybe the next tyrant will be deterred.

	10-10-2002 08:13									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I get a chuckled out of discussions of constitutional legalities in relation to a President's power to make war. I remember one Abe Lincoln that ran roughshod over the consitution once upon a time and gee, in some instances his admirers are those most vocal about not letting Bush cut any corners now.

And they were BOTH Republicans!

	10-10-2002 08:18									#50
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick I remember one Abe Lincoln that ran roughshod over the consitution once upon a time and gee, in some instances his admirers are those most vocal about not letting Bush cut any corners now.

Who are you referring to? I can promise you that neither DF nor Ramo are admirers of Lincoln.

quote: And they were BOTH Republicans!

which means...?

	10-10-2002 08:58									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick There are a great number of reasons for disarming Saddam Hussein.

quote: In the end you have to fight evil sooner or later. It has always been that way, and it always will be. To those who say that Saddam is small fry and not worth the effort, I say (without necessarilly agreeing) lets draw the line with this small fry and maybe the next tyrant will be deterred.

The problem with Bush's attempt to justify the war with Iraq is that it is tainted by the oil/vendetta issue. But beyond that, fighting evil is best done later rather than sooner. Why? Because 'later', the the issue is inarguable. You'll have global consensus eventually if Saddam is truly as bad as Bush says he is. Now, however, it appears only half the US populace favors war, and it seems support is even lower outside the US. Is Saddam bad, or is Bush just on a roll? It seems we don't know for sure.

In short: If Saddam ISN'T a threat and the US invades Iraq to topple him, it will be a gross violation of sovereignty and a war crime.

And before anyone points out that Saddam could use NBC weapons... we don't imprison people for crimes they haven't committed. We shouldn't attack nations for things they might do, either.

	10-10-2002 09:16									#52
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man The problem with Bush's attempt to justify the war with Iraq is that it is tainted by the oil/vendetta issue. But beyond that, fighting evil is best done later rather than sooner. Why? Because 'later', the the issue is inarguable. You'll have global consensus eventually if Saddam is truly as bad as Bush says he is. Now, however, it appears only half the US populace favors war, and it seems support is even lower outside the US. Is Saddam bad, or is Bush just on a roll? It seems we don't know for sure. In short: If Saddam ISN'T a threat and the US invades Iraq to topple him, it will be a gross violation of sovereignty and a war crime. And before anyone points out that Saddam could use NBC weapons... we don't imprison people for crimes they haven't committed. We shouldn't attack nations for things they might do, either.

Saddam has already done these things, is in violation of a cease fire agreement and 16 UN resolutions.

Your statement about it being better to fight evil later rather than sooner is illogical. Later means more death and destruction. Had England and France reacted to the occupation of the Rhineland it is highly unlikely that millions upon millons would have died.

So, its better to wait until Saddam kills a million with a nuke? Preposterous.

	10-10-2002 09:18									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I love what just happened.

Floyd comes in here and posts a perfectly legitimate thread. Alls he wants is for those who support the war to state, in a post, why they feel that way. He didn't put a troll...he didn't throw out bait...he just wanted to see why you feel the way you feel...

...and the FIRST thing all the pro-war people do is run in here and post things like "well why do you oppose the war?" and "You're wrong, Floyd" and those that did post why they wanted the war to occur were vague and gave a one to two sentence response with little or no base.

Absolutely pathetic.

	10-10-2002 09:24									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

“What is best in life, Conan?”

“To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.”

	10-10-2002 09:43									#55
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick Your statement about it being better to fight evil later rather than sooner is illogical. Later means more death and destruction. Had England and France reacted to the occupation of the Rhineland it is highly unlikely that millions upon millons would have died.

Later also avoids the nasty problem of having to read minds to know someone's intent. Saddam hasn't attacked the USA; why should the USA attack him?

quote: So, its better to wait until Saddam kills a million with a nuke? Preposterous.

What if he never does? Don't you think it's wrong to violate a nations sovereignty based on what you think they might do to you?

More to the point, does it occur to you that other nations might find that concept objectionable, because your next president might be even crazier and go after them?

	10-10-2002 09:44									#56
	Support Apolyton

Also, the Catholic Church, dating from the days of St. Augustine, has a well developed concept of "just war." Here is a snipet.


The Catholic just-war tradition focuses on two main areas of moral judgment: jus ad bellum, or the right to go to war, and jus in bello, or right conduct in war. For jus ad bellum, a war must be focused on repelling injury or aggression, entered into as a last resort, and carried out by a legitimate authority. It must have a reasonable chance of success. For jus in bello, a nation at war must respect noncombatant immunity and be limited in scope. The means used must be proportional to the purpose intended. "

Also,

For Cicero, the ability to wage war rested with the state, and the state alone, and could be lawfully waged only "after an official demand for satisfaction has been submitted or warning has been given and a formal declaration made."

If war comes after Saddam has been given every opportunity to avoid war by compliance with the just demands of the United Nations, the war will be just.

	10-10-2002 12:07									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by orange I love what just happened. Floyd comes in here and posts a perfectly legitimate thread. Alls he wants is for those who support the war to state, in a post, why they feel that way. He didn't put a troll...he didn't throw out bait...he just wanted to see why you feel the way you feel... ...and the FIRST thing all the pro-war people do is run in here and post things like "well why do you oppose the war?" and "You're wrong, Floyd" and those that did post why they wanted the war to occur were vague and gave a one to two sentence response with little or no base. Absolutely pathetic.

Maybe some of us know Floyd and his opinions, and find it pointless to list reasons to a guy who thinks that ANY government action outside the US border is wrong, opposes having a military, taxes, and basic government, yet tells you it's his right for the federal gov to protect and take care of him, yet he owes the gov nothing.

Maybe that was the reason Orange.

	10-10-2002 14:25									#58
	Suffering from ads?

so chris, you presume to know exactly what floyd will say and do and in doing so find it pointless to reason with him?

hmmm sound familiar?

	10-10-2002 14:52									#59
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Invading Iraq is the only responsible thing to do.

I believe that Iraqise majority doesn't agree. They don't want american crap there. They have enough crap of their own.

	10-10-2002 15:14									#60
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by MRT144 so chris, you presume to know exactly what floyd will say and do and in doing so find it pointless to reason with him? hmmm sound familiar?

Yes. It sounded very much like David Floyd's stated politics. Chris did leave out that David is an Anarchist perhaps that should have been there as well. His position on the US and ALL wars the US has ever had is well known. The only one he might have found acceptable was the Revolution. I forget his position on that one.