Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
2nd Amend. case
"Hawke" wrote in message ... You sure have given me a lot to chew on, Ed. I would Ed, but I already know what their argument is and I'm not buying it. I'm saying no sale. That's too bad. Well, you can join the grumblers out in the street while the case is decided, then. Much of your argument is simply wrong, and the parts that are right are well-known to the petitioners and the respondents. The case will be decided at the top of the steps with all of your argument as a backstory that's been around for many decades and that's already been presented in the briefs.d I'll be watching it with great interest. You can join in with the anti people side of the argument if you like. There will be arguments that you can go along with making that claim. The ACLU and the government will be glad to have your support. But I tell you what. Watch for the court's holding when they decide the case. Unless they duck the question it's going to come out one of two ways; either the 2nd amendment was intended to protect the right of the public to keep and bear arms, or it doesn't protect that right. All the briefs and all the legal arguments aside, that is what the debate is about, and as I said, there really isn't a legitimate debate. Because if the founding fathers didn't believe that the right to bear arms needed protecting then they wouldn't have believed that the right to free speech or of the press or to assemble would either. If you noticed I already predicted they will find for an individual right, Hawke, back in one of the first messages I posted on the subject. I don't recall that but to me I am not sure what they will do. They may find it an individual right but I think they are just as likely not to. You do know that I think there is an individual right simply by my reading of the amendment and my knowledge of early American history. Oh, I'm not sure what they'll do, either. Predicting what the S.C. will do on any case is foolish, but it's still worth a guess. My guess is that they'll decide for an individual right; that they won't incorporate it at this point; and that they'll do something strange with the matter of scrutiny. And what they do about scrutiny will determine whether the case is remanded back to the Circuit Court of Appeals. While I'm sticking my neck out, I'm also going to guess that Scalia and Thomas will file a concurring brief that rejects a substantive due process basis (which is what I'm guessing the majority will use to decide the case) and make a pitch for restoring the priviledges and immunities clause. Thomas may also argue for incorporation. But, who knows. However, to say that it "isn't a legitimate debate," when six Circuit Courts of Appeals have decided the right is a collective one and two Circuit Courts of Appeals have decided it is an individual one, suggests that you believe you know the truth and they don't -- or, as you have suggested, that your motives are honest and theirs are dishonest. More likely, it's a matter of them knowing far more about the history and the law involved (or their law clerks do) and deciding on the basis of accepted jurisprudence. "It's just that I know when one side has a case and the other doesn't," you say. How much do you know about the case that has been made, anyway? What have you studied that convinces you that you know better than the judges on six major federal courts what is a case, and what isn't? I reject your argument that because certain courts had a position on the amendment that holds any weight. BTW, that's a logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Now, there's an interesting turn. Since the issue is the authority of the Supreme Court, I think the claim of logical fallacy is an oxymoron. d8-) This is about what the Court is going to do, Hawke. As I've said repeatedly, arguing the case here is a waste of time. The issue is the case, and the coming decision. They *do* have the authority. So there's no fallacy involved. Their authority is the core of the issue. Numbers do not make one right. I also will add that my motives are honest and I know that I can't say that about everyone else in legal system. Hey, I'm not arguing the 2nd here. I'm discussing the Court case. If I wanted to argue the 2nd, I can take either side. I've done in many times before but I won't do it again. If we did, all you have to tell me is which doctrines of interpretation will be used to decide the case: http://www.constitution.org/cons/prin_cons.htm In particular, if you're going to go for originalism, you'd have to tell me if it's going to be "original intent" or "original understanding." If I thought that the meaning and intention of the 2nd amendment was to protect the right to hunt or the right of militias to be armed; I would take that position. But after analyzing the facts, there is no way for me to believe that was why that amendment was written. It simply is not rational to believe that is why the amendment was written. Well, that's your point of view. Numerous courts have disagreed. As to why I think I know better than the judges, that's because I understand how judges think and act. As a political scientist I understand the politics of the legal system and into the way judges make decisions. In this debate most on the "anti" side have an anti gun agenda. In pursuing this agenda through the courts it's clear that the only way to prevail is for the courts to accept the idea that American citizens don't have any natural or legal right to have arms. If you accept that the people don't have this right then it opens the door to disarm the public, which is what the anti gun side would like to do. If there wasn't an active, well-financed, group wanting this outcome we wouldn't be debating the meaning of the 2nd amendment in the first place. You've made an assumption here that is part of why various courts have disagreed with you. Your argument, you claim, is based on intent, or sometimes you argue more on the basis of original understanding. The case for that depends upon how close you're going to hold to the key sources. For example, if you're Robert Bork, you're going to lean on the text; you'll follow the principle that all words have meaning; and you're going to refer first to the debates in the First Congress for guidance. That will lead you to a conclusion that the 2nd Amendment was a recognition of the states' authority to arm their militias as they wish -- with already-armed citizens, if they so desire. But it will be all about militias. Now, if you accept a wider circle of "approved commentators" or "recognized authorities," you probably arrive at an individual right. But these are two different, legitimate principles of jurisprudence. Many people who defend the individual right, like Gunner and his crew, claim to be hard-nosed originalists. Judge Bork is a conservative and the quintessential hard-nosed originalist. And he arrives at the conclusion that the right indicated in the 2nd Amendment is a collective one. The irony is that he's also opposed to gun control. But not because of the 2nd Amendment. I think much of your "understanding" about how judges think is based on your own prejudices. FWIW, I don't think you "know all the arguments" favoring the militia/collective right idea, despite what you said. But I've been trying hard not to get into a debate with you about this because I don't really care what arguments you might make. What I'm interested in, and what people who care about the 2nd should be interested in, is not the fortress of self-fulfilling arguments gun owners have built to convince themselves, but rather what arguments are being made by the petitioner and the respondent in the case at hand, which promises to be the most significant 2nd Amendment case in modern history. It's going to be a close call, possibly a mixed result, and an important window on the current state of the scope of "liberties" that will be adjudicated in substantive due process cases. It has a lot of import and it could have a lot of consequences for all of us, even beyond the question of the 2nd itself. The two "interested" sides in this issue are the pro gun groups/individuals, who want there to be an individual right to bear arms, and the anti gun groups/individuals who don't want there to be an individual right to bear arms. Then there are those of us like me who are neither. We look at the amendment itself and at the founding fathers and at what they wanted and what the amendment actually says and was meant to do. Without having a dog in the fight, and after looking at a very simple and understandable amendment, my reading and understanding of it is that it was designed to protect the people from being arbitrarily deprived of their weapons by an overzealous or tyranical government. That sounds like a militia argument, right? That is my opinion of what the amendment is for and is why it was put there to begin with. OK, so you have a self-armed militia. But it's still a militia. And the states decide how to arm the militia, correct? That's the unequivocal conclusion drawn from the 2nd; the minimum that can't be seriously argued. I think this because I am able to read and comprehend the English language, and I am rational. Consequently, I don't need any authority to tell me what the amendment means. And I don't acknowledge any superiority of brainpower or knowledge that any court or judge has that means I need their help to comprehend what the 2nd amendment means. I'll submit that you probably don't have a full grasp of the meaning of a nominative absolute sentence (something else I addressed at length earlier and then deleted), and that you're not being mindful of the Constitutional principle explained in the list of interpretive principles I linked to above: "None of the words are without force and effect, except those superseded by amendments, unless such amendments are repealed. Except for the statement of purpose in the preamble, every word was intended by the Framers to be legally normative, and not just advisory, declaratory, aspirational, or exhortatory. Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent. Words should be interpreted to give them some effect." That's a long-standing and fundamental principle in constitutional jurisprudence. It means that the words relating to militia must be interpreted to have effect. It's very tough to restrain myself from arguing with many of your assertions. g And you're bringing up incorrect arguments in some side issues. I had a list of citations for you concerning abortion in the Roe case, but I deleted it because I'm not in a mood to argue Roe again. I also had a list of quotations from Amar and others concerning the status of substantive due process and incorporation, but I deleted that, too. Good, because we can argue over those issues until the cows come home and that's very boring. But we can dismiss a couple of these issues without getting into legal citations. First, what you're said he That's funny because when I was in graduate school none of my professors, who were all lawyers, mentioned anything about the 14th amendment being in question. ...is a very strange claim when you consider that the question of incorporation still comes up all the time in court cases, and it is still *selective incorporation*, which has yet to be applied to the 3rd Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 7th Amendment, and the ban on excessive bail and fines in the 8th Amendment. Of course, it has not been applied, either, to the 2nd Amendment, and it won't be applied to the 9th or 10th Amendments, for logical reasons. I guess why we didn't discuss it much is because there was strong agreement in the legal dept. that the 14th amendment applies pretty much everywhere and that while it has not been applied that way so far, it's only a matter of time before it will be. Incrementally, it's being applied everywhere. In time there won't be any debate because it'll be broadly accepted as the way things are. That's an opinion, and it contradicts an attempt by the conservatives to abandon the principle of substantive due process, which Scalia correctly calls an oxymoron. Whether state's rights fall completely off the table depends more on the judges who fill future Court seats rather than some inexorable historicism applied to Court decisions. As history shows, they flip-flop from time to time. You probably had a bunch of liberal profs. Or they were just tired of the argument. Other people involved are not tired of it, and are still fighting it. For example, at least two, and maybe as many as four, sitting Supreme Court justices. We could get into how Hugo Black proposed an all-encompassing incorporation, which was rejected by successive Courts, but we won't. d8-) The fact is that it is still a controversial issue; the limits of substantive due process are still in flux; and Scalia, among others, never misses an opportunity to stick a knife into the heart of substantive due process in its entirety. No need to argue that even though in the long run Hugo's view will eventually be the accepted one in law. It's only an issue because of the regressive, ultra conservatives who don't want to accept the role the government has taken in our society. Opinion on your part. Liberal opinion. It sounds Warreneske, as if nothing has happened over the past 20 years. As usual the conservative justices are trying to bring the country back to the ideal days when women were chattel and blacks were private property. They will go the way of the passenger pidgeon but it's taking a long time for them to go, unfortunately. Incorrect supposition. What they're trying to do is to get away from the substantive due process "extensions" and to return to deciding unenumerated rights on the "life, liberty, property" principle that they feel was the sound basis for the priviledges and immunities clause. This has happened a few times, under the 5th Amendment, and the conservative Court feels it's better juridprudence. They're ready to overturn that decision from the Slaughterhouse Cases, if they get the chance. The result would be a somewhat narrower list of incorporated rights. There is some good thought in the petitioner's brief and the amici briefs. I was hoping someone would read them and want to discuss them, but, as I said, I've heard the standard pro-gun arguments you're making for decades and there's nothing more left to be said about them. As far as I know, you haven't filed a brief, so it has little to do with the case at hand. If you had read the respondent's brief, you might have remarked with some surprise that the attorneys for Heller have *explicitly* said they aren't asking the Court to decide on incorporation. The case was designed specifically to avoid it. Why? Because it's still a controversy; because the conservative justices who are likely to be sympathetic to the basic case for an individual right are the same ones who reject the substantive due process extensions; and because a favorable ruling on the 2nd could well be the result of reaching into those extensions, the very substantive due process issues (under the 5th Amendment) that the respondent would like to have working in their favor, while not getting into the risky territory of the other due process issues (under the 14th Amendment) that could wind up shooting them in the foot. The conservative justices are indeed being hoisted on their own petard. Their right wing political views are putting them in a tough spot. Usually when this happens they come up with some convoluted reasoning to do what they wanted to and still come up with a tricky way of justifying it. Logical legal reasoning isn't going to cut it. Life is hard when you have a set of hard and fast rules and a situation comes up that they don't have answers for. It would be so much easier if they weren't such idealogues. But then if they weren't they wouldn't have gotten the job to begin with. This case is far from being simple. The "yes/no" question you pose is a chimera. You could get a "yes," and it could be rendered meaningless (except as a philosophical point) if the Court applies a low level of scrutiny, allowing "compelling state interest" to be broadly defined and leaving gun control laws standing, with the door left wide open for many more. You could get a "no, but," in which the individual right is equivocal (being based on one reasonable conclusion drawn from Miller, for example, that there is some kind of individual right but that it only applies to those arms an individual needs for serving in a militia), but it could wind up producing the ironic result of striking down any impediments to owning machine guns. Yes, it's tough isn't it? If you say the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to arms that makes them a threat to the safety of everyone in government. How do you come up with a reasoning that says people can have guns but not the kind or enough of them to threaten the government? I don't think you can. Nor has anyone made that argument. The safety issue is about other citizens. It's all over the place in the petitioner's brief and the related amici. It would be so much easier to say the 2nd amendment denies the public the right to be armed. But then the consititution really makes it so clear that it does mean that. What to do. What to do. If they were really honest arbiters of the constitution rather than politicos the decisions would make a lot more sense and would be a lot easier to make. They're going to **** off a lot of people on this one no matter what they do. Maybe some of them will quit. I think you're getting carried away. These are outliers in the range of possibility, but they illustrate that the "yes/no" question is a problematic one. "Yes/no" isn't all that's being decided. More relevant, it may not even be the significant issue in terms of gun-law consequences. Of course they can't just make it a yes or no decision. That's because they are interested in so much more than simply what does the constitution says. If that was all that mattered a simple yes or no would be easy. It's because they are more interested in all the other issues than what the constitution means that makes it difficult. In my view, all they are supposed to do is worry about the constitutionality of a matter and not about the resulting fallout from what they decide. The don't have the guts to just say what the constitution says and they all have political agendas to promote that makes deciding this case hard. That was less than five years ago BTW. If you're referring to the court expanding federal power over the states by way of the due process clause there may be some state arguments about what the federal government can or can't do, but the court has allowed more and more federal control over the states all the time. It's only a matter of time before the "power" of the individual states is really nothing more than a fiction because the federal government is more or less now a national government with states' authority being merely window dressing. The 14th amendment is just the vehicle for making this a reality. If you are referring to another debate on the 14th then I'd ask that you refresh my memory as to what you mean. Well, you've modified that somewhat from what you originally said, and which I was referring to: I'm familiar with Gitlow, and the application of the 14th amendment to the states is not a yes or no. It's a yes. The interpretation is that the amendment applies the supremecy of the federal government over the states. All the time. That doesn't mean there aren't some lawsuits that the states win in disputes with the federal government. But the court's ruling on the14th amendment means that the constitution applies everywhere all the time. Not "everywhere." Not at all, so far, on the Amendments I refer to above. The active doctrine is that incorporation is selective, and that it applies only to individual issues that have been decided by the Court. Yes, the courts are still dragging their feet on this one. Most things have already been decided in favor of applying the 14th to the states. How much longer do you think it's going to take until Black's universal application is the rule? I don't think it's a matter of if. It's a matter of when, which is why I said that there isn't really a debate. It's going one way and one way only and that's how it will be. It's just taking a long time to get there. In recent years, Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia have all argued against incorporation in various cases. Besides them, there is Harvard's Akhil Amar, probably one of the top three Constitutional scholars in the business today, who has argued persuasively against incorporation of the religious Establishment Clause, of all things, in his book _The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction_. That book today is considered the last word on the incorporation of the Bill of Rights by many legal scholars. So, again, I think you have been a bit misled. Incorporation is not a done deal. We see states' rights emerge from time to time in various cases. The doctrine of substantive due process is an embarrassment among many legal scholars on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide, just as the 2nd Amendment itself is an embarrassment (recall Sanford Levinson's Yale Law Review article by that name: "The Embarrassing Second Amendment"). And, like Dred Scott, it's an open secret that the Slaughterhouse Cases are a bad precedent that we continue to live with and accept. The point is that there is no standing doctrine that says "yes," except as the Court decides each issue. There is no "yes" on habeas corpus. There is no "yes" on grand juries. And there is no "yes" on the 2nd Amendment. The thing about the 2nd is that there are interpretations of it that could lead to an individual right, but not to incorporation. That's why the respondents in this case specifically chose to avoid the issue. That's the way of the law. Nothing changes until it absolutely has to and every nit has to be argued over endlessly. If it wasn't done like that look how many less billable hours attorneys would be entitled to. It takes forever to resolve legal issues and even when you think it's finally decided someone decides to argue it some more. No wonder lawyers bill by the hour instead of the job. Now, if you want to take issue with this and have the last word, go for it. I'm not interested in arguing the 2nd Amendment in terms that were laid out 20 or 30 years ago. I've done that dozens of times. I am interested in the case at hand and the way it's being argued. But that's all in the briefs. How the Court reacts to it will be in the oral argument. The rest is just background noise. I'm less interested in the briefs and the legal arguments because the opposing sides are so partisan. They will make any argument over any and every issue if they think it will help them win. They don't care about what the constitution really means because all they want is to advance their political goal. It's like a divorce case were all the sides care about is getting the most money and don't give a **** about what's fair. I'm about what is right. I think that is the nub of our debate. No, it's not. The nub of our debate is that the only relevent subject is the upcoming hearing about the 2nd Amendment. The case you're making, which is a watered-down version of the case made in several of the amicus briefs, is only half of the story. The other half is the *opposing* case that's being made. I'm interested in an outcome that is right according to the actual wishes of the founding fathers and you are more interested in who comes up with a winning legal argument in the current proceeding. Those are quite different, not wrong just different. In other words, what you're interested in is that the Supreme Court sees things your way. d8-) If you would repost some of the links to those legal briefs I wouldn't mind taking a look at them. Finally... Here are all of them in one place: http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html -- Ed Huntress |
#42
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
2nd Amend. case
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:29:00 -0600, Rex wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: "nick hull" wrote in message snip On the other hand, Montana may secede: "Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment ... would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S." http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html I like those guys - may have to relocate If Montana goes, its likely Idaho, and the Dakotas will also. There is a flourishing arms industry growing in Sturgis among other places. In fact, there are quite a number of Western states that would pull the plug as well. The very long term war between the Feds and the Western states is hardly over, and would simply provide further reasons to bail out of the Union. It would be interesting to see how many corporations and industries that would move to those states, just for the banking and tax advantages alone. Anyone envision the Hildabitch or Comrade Obama in the role of Abe Lincoln? Gunner Hahahahahoho...ho.. Hey, what happened to that Free Vermont project? Weren't the libertarians supposed to occupy Vermont and secede from the United States? Did that one just sort of die on the vine? Or did the libertarians all run out of gas before they got there? -- Ed Huntress |
#43
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
2nd Amend. case
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:26:57 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote: snipped - to show that it really can be done... On the other hand, Montana may secede: "Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment ... would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S." http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html I like those guys - may have to relocate Ha-ha! Is that "Dixie" I hear them whistling? d8-) I'm sure that any court, anywhere, would declare the "compact" moot. As a condition of statehood they had to declare that they would adhere to the US Constitution -- including amendments, Supreme Court decisions, etc. Where their constitution conflicts with the current Court declarations of the US Constitution, the supremacy clause comes into effect: the US Constitution trumps. But it's an entertaining idea. -- Ed Huntress We had the same fantasy here in Texas when I was a kid. As the only state that was an independent nation it was a fun fantasy to play with. But civics class in high school ruined the whole thing! Darned education... Richard I wonder if anyone would care to point out the portions of the Constition and so forth, where states are forbidden to bail out of a tyrannical Union? They're bound by oath under Articles VI and VII. There's no getting around it, Gunner. Once they ratified, they agreed to support the Constitution. That rat******* Lincoln used the Might is Right model, because there was no such prohibition to be found. That's the result of an indifferent education on your part. -- Ed Huntress |
#44
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
2nd Amend. case
"nick hull" wrote in message .. . In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: I agree rebellions are usually a bad idea, but if you push people far enough someone is going to try it. Any rebellion today would have to be secret to have any chance of success; political assasinations, smart roadside bombs, cell structure or even dispersed leadership. It would be like nothing ever seen before. I do know there are secret groups making plans and accumulating supplies but do not expect to see any action until inflation becomes ruinous (or some other national crisis). The 'people' will not join a revolution until it is seen as a done deal, most of them will be unaware there is even a rebellion going on until very late in the game. A developed country, as you realize, has sufficient military might to crush anything it can find so the type of insurrection as seen in 3rd world countries would not work here. That's nice. Enjoy your rebellion fantasies, Nick. When we hang you for treason, there will be plenty of people begging to pull the lever. As Tim McVeigh learned, the large majority of people don't believe that rebellions are justified under an amendable Constitution. I'm way too old to even think about rebellion myself, but there are going to be some young people who will feel they are being cornered by gun control, inflation and no social security. There always are, always have been, and always will be. And then they grow up -- most of them, anyway. Beware of those who have nothing to lose, they are the most dangerous. They always are. It wouldn't matter what kind of government they had, they'd probably still be the ones with nothing to lose. That tends to be the result of their own behavior rather than the government they have. As you say, when someone revolts there will be plenty of people willing to pull the lever, but that cuts both ways. There will be enough willing to pull the trigger, especially if they believe they will never be identified. It's that intractable difference of opinion that will bring on a civil war, and I have no idea if it will be next year or in a hundred years. When it starts it will be difficult to stop. No system lasts forever, there will be revolutions and invasions and secessions eventually. One never knows. -- Ed Huntress |
#45
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"comment" wrote in message ... In , on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:43:22 -0800, Gunner, wrote: I wonder if anyone would care to point out the portions of the Constition and so forth, where states are forbidden to bail out of a tyrannical Union? There is no such restriction. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the assumption was that any state could leave at any time for any reason. That's a load of crap. That rat******* Lincoln used the Might is Right model, because there was no such prohibition to be found. As Lincoln well knew. After secession there was much hand wringing and teeth gnashing in DC about what to do about the Confederacy... for months. There was no legal basis upon which to do anything at all. The Confederacy was reluctantly recognized as a sovereign and independent nation... and you couldn't just go around attacking other nations for such specious reasons as "national security" (in those days when the plain language of the Constitution was better recognized, anyway). It wasn't until the handy excuse of Ft. Sumter came along that the DC crowd perceived a loophole. Had the Confederacy managed to live with that situation, it's hard to imagine what pretext DC could have used. More crap. Besides the oaths made in Article VI ("The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution..."), they agreed to the supremacy clause. The principles and the wording were built upon the unseverable covenant of the Articles of Confederation. As Lincoln rightly said, the arguments made by Calhoun and others for a "right" of secesion were self-serving sophistry, a creation of the authors' imaginations and nothing more. Certainly the Confederate states had a right to revolt; that was a principle ensconsed in several of the documents upon which the country was founded. And the federal government had a right to put down the revolt. Which they did. The rest is nonsense cooked up to justify a violation of solemn oaths. -- Ed Huntress |
#46
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"nick hull" wrote in message .. . In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: Besides the oaths made in Article VI ("The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution..."), they agreed to the supremacy clause. The principles and the wording were built upon the unseverable covenant of the Articles of Confederation. It might seem to some that the feds are not supporting the constitution and seceeded states might support it better You're welcome to vote for someone who would support that, Nick. But don't be surprised if most voters don't agree with you. -- Ed Huntress |
#47
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote: Besides the oaths made in Article VI ("The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution..."), they agreed to the supremacy clause. The principles and the wording were built upon the unseverable covenant of the Articles of Confederation. It might seem to some that the feds are not supporting the constitution and seceeded states might support it better Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
#48
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
Ed, I think that you are right about the lack of voter support for Nick's
idea of secession. I also agree with Nick that our "leaders" have tromped merrily over the Constitution and usurped power not specifically granted to the Federal Government. This I think needs to be stopped. We had a Constitutional Amendment to stop booze. We didn't bother with an Amendment for the Drug war and are merrily locking away people when found with small amounts of Marijuana and in fact have created a similar industry to that run by the gangs in prohibition days. We didnt' bother with an Amendment when Bush latched on to the power to declare someone an enemy combatant and strip them of their Constitutionally guranteed rights. Further as Naomi Wolf says in her book, the changes that have been going on in our government parallel closely those used by historically famous dictators. I don't think that Constitutional Amendments are going to work anymore if the Elected Representatives choose to ignore the Constitution to start with. Stu Fields "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "nick hull" wrote in message .. . In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: Besides the oaths made in Article VI ("The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution..."), they agreed to the supremacy clause. The principles and the wording were built upon the unseverable covenant of the Articles of Confederation. It might seem to some that the feds are not supporting the constitution and seceeded states might support it better You're welcome to vote for someone who would support that, Nick. But don't be surprised if most voters don't agree with you. -- Ed Huntress |
#49
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . Ed, I think that you are right about the lack of voter support for Nick's idea of secession. I also agree with Nick that our "leaders" have tromped merrily over the Constitution and usurped power not specifically granted to the Federal Government. This I think needs to be stopped. We had a Constitutional Amendment to stop booze. We didn't bother with an Amendment for the Drug war and are merrily locking away people when found with small amounts of Marijuana and in fact have created a similar industry to that run by the gangs in prohibition days. We didnt' bother with an Amendment when Bush latched on to the power to declare someone an enemy combatant and strip them of their Constitutionally guranteed rights. Further as Naomi Wolf says in her book, the changes that have been going on in our government parallel closely those used by historically famous dictators. I don't think that Constitutional Amendments are going to work anymore if the Elected Representatives choose to ignore the Constitution to start with. You have some good points, Stu, and I think a lot of the blame has to fall on Congress for not contesting Bush's usurpations. There's a lot of discussion in policy circles these days about how difficult it is to roll back presidential powers once they're implemented if Congress doesn't challenge them. For the most part, only Congress has standing to challenge those things in court. But such challenges rarely get to the Supreme Court because nobody likes a Constitutional crisis. The thing that makes it sticky right now is our semi-war footing. During a war, presidential powers usually are granted and allowed to slide. After the war is over, everyone understands that the president can't expect Congress to go along with any special powers assumed during the war. Congress now is somewhat between a rock and a hard place, because the realists know they can't just pull out of Iraq, and they're giving Bush as much slack as they can to prosecute the war and get it over with. Of course, there also are plenty in Congress who want out right now, but not enough to make anything stick, legally. But I'm among those who think they have allowed too much, and they should force a confrontation on many issues now, while Bush is a lame duck and has little sway over Republicans in Congress. Now is the time to roll those things back. -- Ed Huntress |
#50
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
2nd Amend. case
I don't recall that but to me I am not sure what they will do. They may
find it an individual right but I think they are just as likely not to. You do know that I think there is an individual right simply by my reading of the amendment and my knowledge of early American history. Oh, I'm not sure what they'll do, either. Predicting what the S.C. will do on any case is foolish, but it's still worth a guess. My guess is that they'll decide for an individual right; that they won't incorporate it at this point; and that they'll do something strange with the matter of scrutiny. And what they do about scrutiny will determine whether the case is remanded back to the Circuit Court of Appeals. How they will come down on this is difficult if not impossible to know but the best guess comes from the personal viewpoints of the justices. I don't see how they can remand this case. This case is ripe. They put it off for years when Rhenquest was in charge because he was dodging it. Now's the time to decide it especially with so many conservatives on the bench. That will change if we get a Democrat in the White House. If I was betting I'd say they will come down on the side of individual rights but then will qualify it somehow so as to not really give the full right to the public. While I'm sticking my neck out, I'm also going to guess that Scalia and Thomas will file a concurring brief that rejects a substantive due process basis (which is what I'm guessing the majority will use to decide the case) and make a pitch for restoring the priviledges and immunities clause. Thomas may also argue for incorporation. Guessing they will see the right for the individual is one thing but predicting that Scalia and Thomas will concur isn't sticking your neck out. They may take different routes to explain themselves but they will wind up in the same place. I reject your argument that because certain courts had a position on the amendment that holds any weight. BTW, that's a logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Now, there's an interesting turn. Since the issue is the authority of the Supreme Court, I think the claim of logical fallacy is an oxymoron. d8-) That isn't what I meant. I acknowledge the supremecy of the Supreme Court's decision. What I meant was that just because six circuit courts had decided a certain way or that the accepted view is such and such doesn't mean it's the right decision. Saying that because of the authority of circuit courts or to other legal authorities means the 2nd amendment means X doesn't mean that is a fact. X is the court's opinion. It may be right but maybe not. In this case I was saying using them as the authority that the 2nd amendment was about militias was an appeal to authority and not a valid argument in an of itself. This is about what the Court is going to do, Hawke. As I've said repeatedly, arguing the case here is a waste of time. The issue is the case, and the coming decision. They *do* have the authority. So there's no fallacy involved. Their authority is the core of the issue. No question about SC authority just on whether accepting the earlier court's holding is an appeal to authority. As to arguing the case, yes, that doesn't make a lot of sense because I get the impression that for the most part we agree on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Hey, I'm not arguing the 2nd here. I'm discussing the Court case. If I wanted to argue the 2nd, I can take either side. I've done in many times before but I won't do it again. If we did, all you have to tell me is which doctrines of interpretation will be used to decide the case: I think what I'm trying to say is that whatever legal interpretation one chooses to use it's just a cover for what they really think. Some justices think the 2nd Amendment is about militias and some think the opposite. They can pick and choose any legal argument they want to justify what they want to decide. http://www.constitution.org/cons/prin_cons.htm In particular, if you're going to go for originalism, you'd have to tell me if it's going to be "original intent" or "original understanding." That's a good example of what I mean. All those arguments or rationals for a decision are beside the point. What does the judge actually believe the amendments says? The answer to that is what determines what "interpretation" he takes to explain his decision. Well, that's your point of view. Numerous courts have disagreed. Of course they have. That's because different courts have judges that have different political persuasions. Maybe it's the political scientist in me but I always attribute legal decisions to political motives. You want a conservative opinion go to a republican judge. Want a liberal opinion on the same issue, go to a progressive judge. You've made an assumption here that is part of why various courts have disagreed with you. Your argument, you claim, is based on intent, or sometimes you argue more on the basis of original understanding. The case for that depends upon how close you're going to hold to the key sources. For example, if you're Robert Bork, you're going to lean on the text; you'll follow the principle that all words have meaning; and you're going to refer first to the debates in the First Congress for guidance. That will lead you to a conclusion that the 2nd Amendment was a recognition of the states' authority to arm their militias as they wish -- with already-armed citizens, if they so desire. But it will be all about militias You're right that I do argue original intent whenever possible. But other times I think what the founder's thought is no longer relevant or simply doesn't apply and a new standard has to be created. I'm adaptable. I look at the plain language of the amendment and I look at what the writers intended, which I get from historical references and writings. I could see how someone could misinterpret the 2nd amendment though and believe it was all about militias, that is if they didn't know American history. But I do. Lots of legal minds are great on the law but know nothing about history. You do know that the founders put the Bill of Rights in a specific order with the most important first and the least important farther down the list, right? Because if you know this it's hard to believe that the founding fathers thought the question of militias was second in importance only to the rights protected by the first amendment. Now, if you accept a wider circle of "approved commentators" or "recognized authorities," you probably arrive at an individual right. But these are two different, legitimate principles of jurisprudence. Many people who defend the individual right, like Gunner and his crew, claim to be hard-nosed originalists. Judge Bork is a conservative and the quintessential hard-nosed originalist. And he arrives at the conclusion that the right indicated in the 2nd Amendment is a collective one. He probably is one of those guys who knows everything about law but nothing about history. How you can be a strict originalist and come up with an opinion that denies that the 2nd amendment was meant to protect the people's right to arm themselves seems competely irrational. Unless you realize that Bork is a right wing type that is for giving the government dictatorial powers in a number of areas. At the heart of his view is that no matter what the government has a right to protect itself at all costs. A free and armed people is at odds with that view. But idealogues like Bork are known for being inconsistent. That comes from having to fit everything into a set of preconceived ideas. The irony is that he's also opposed to gun control. But not because of the 2nd Amendment. See, inconsistent. I think much of your "understanding" about how judges think is based on your own prejudices. Not prejudices, observations. FWIW, I don't think you "know all the arguments" favoring the militia/collective right idea, despite what you said. But I've been trying hard not to get into a debate with you about this because I don't really care what arguments you might make. What I'm interested in, and what people who care about the 2nd should be interested in, is not the fortress of self-fulfilling arguments gun owners have built to convince themselves, but rather what arguments are being made by the petitioner and the respondent in the case at hand, which promises to be the most significant 2nd Amendment case in modern history. It's going to be a close call, possibly a mixed result, and an important window on the current state of the scope of "liberties" that will be adjudicated in substantive due process cases. It has a lot of import and it could have a lot of consequences for all of us, even beyond the question of the 2nd itself. I question your calling this decision one of monumental proportions. I don't think they will come up with anything definitive. They'll dance around the real issue and come up with some half assed opinion that goes half way to saying the right is to protect individual gun owner's rights. I also predict that all the "liberal" justices will find that the right is not an individual one. I know, that's not going out on much of a limb, is it? The two "interested" sides in this issue are the pro gun groups/individuals, who want there to be an individual right to bear arms, and the anti gun groups/individuals who don't want there to be an individual right to bear arms. Then there are those of us like me who are neither. We look at the amendment itself and at the founding fathers and at what they wanted and what the amendment actually says and was meant to do. Without having a dog in the fight, and after looking at a very simple and understandable amendment, my reading and understanding of it is that it was designed to protect the people from being arbitrarily deprived of their weapons by an overzealous or tyranical government. That sounds like a militia argument, right? Uh, no, not really. My reading of the amendment is that the clause about the militias is simply meant as an explanation of why the right is for the people to keep arms. Militias and all that pertains to them is under the purview of the states and they have the right to do whatever they want to regarding them. That is not an issue of national magnitude like the right to arms is. The constitutional amendment is meant to guarantee a right from usurpation by the national and state governments. That is my opinion of what the amendment is for and is why it was put there to begin with. OK, so you have a self-armed militia. But it's still a militia. And the states decide how to arm the militia, correct? That's the unequivocal conclusion drawn from the 2nd; the minimum that can't be seriously argued. You can call individuals with arms a militia if you want but unless it is organized somehow it's simply individuals with their own private weapons. I don't disagree that the states control their own militias but that comes from other sections of the constitution and not the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is meant to restrain the federal government in regards to the people's rights. I'll submit that you probably don't have a full grasp of the meaning of a nominative absolute sentence (something else I addressed at length earlier and then deleted), and that you're not being mindful of the Constitutional principle explained in the list of interpretive principles I linked to above: I'll have to disagree; especially when the sentence is well written and is only sixteen words long. I would submit that if someone like me with 20 years of education and some of that is in the field of law cannot understand what a sentence like the one in the 2nd amendment means then the founding fathers did one hell of a bad job in writing it. Because if I can't grasp the true meaning of it then there aren't many who can. And I would also suggest that the writers of that amendment kept it short for one reason, that they wanted it to be easily understood by all and for its meaning to be clear and unambiguous. The alternative is that they wanted their amendment to be so arcane and difficult to understand that only a few highly trained experts could comprehend it. Something tells me that was not their intent even though I didn't read that anywhere. 8-) "None of the words are without force and effect, except those superseded by amendments, unless such amendments are repealed. Except for the statement of purpose in the preamble, every word was intended by the Framers to be legally normative, and not just advisory, declaratory, aspirational, or exhortatory. Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent. Words should be interpreted to give them some effect." That sounds like a definition of legal parsing to me. There is the meaning of each and every word and then there is the meaning of the sentence and the paragraph. One can easily lose the meaning of the whole when concentrating too much on the parts. Unnecessarily complicating the meaning of the 2nd amendment is just another way of making an argument as to it's actual meaning. If everyone could understand what it meant it wouldn't be possible to argue about it's meaning. I still say it means yea or nay. That's a long-standing and fundamental principle in constitutional jurisprudence. It means that the words relating to militia must be interpreted to have effect. I'm sure they do but they just were not meant to protect the right to militias. That right falls under the rights reserved to the states. The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution after it was written and those rights enumerated were some of the most vital to the protection of the people. Nothing about militias falls in that category. The right to arms, yeah. That's an opinion, and it contradicts an attempt by the conservatives to abandon the principle of substantive due process, which Scalia correctly calls an oxymoron. I would call a Scalia opinion and rationality an oxymoron. For a guy who is supposedly so bright isn't it funny that every decision of his has a far right political spin to it? When this is the case I think his legal reasoning comes into question. On the one hand, Scalia sees the government as having no rights to intervene in anything but on the other he thinks the SC should intervene in a national election and decide who becomes president. See what I mean? He's completely inconsistent. He's so far to the right his decsions are rarely rational. That's why I don't give his "legal" arguments any weight. Whether state's rights fall completely off the table depends more on the judges who fill future Court seats rather than some inexorable historicism applied to Court decisions. As history shows, they flip-flop from time to time. Yes they do but over the long haul they tend to accept certain trends. They do this because they don't like to make decisions that make big differences, it gets them in trouble, so they like to do things incrementally over time. You probably had a bunch of liberal profs. Or they were just tired of the argument. Other people involved are not tired of it, and are still fighting it. For example, at least two, and maybe as many as four, sitting Supreme Court justices. Aren't all profs liberal? I haven't found a lot of Ph.Ds that are right wing. As to the 14th debate I just don't see it as much of a big issue anymore. It's like tobacco being addictive. Some still say it's not, like tobacco company CEOs. But for all intents and purposes it's decided. I think that is what we have here. Some still haven't accepted that supremecy of the federal government in all areas as deemed by the 14th amendment but the rest of us see it as inevitible. No need to argue that even though in the long run Hugo's view will eventually be the accepted one in law. It's only an issue because of the regressive, ultra conservatives who don't want to accept the role the government has taken in our society. Opinion on your part. Liberal opinion. It sounds Warreneske, as if nothing has happened over the past 20 years. It depends on your perspective. Conservatives are still fighting to limit federal power but the majority don't go along with that view. If that's the majority view then it's not a liberal one. Only the conservative political justices are arguing the 14th doesn't apply. It's like global warming. Go anywhere on the planet and the widely held view is man is causing it. Come to the US and the only people who say it isn't are conservatives. As usual the conservative justices are trying to bring the country back to the ideal days when women were chattel and blacks were private property. They will go the way of the passenger pidgeon but it's taking a long time for them to go, unfortunately. Incorrect supposition. What they're trying to do is to get away from the substantive due process "extensions" and to return to deciding unenumerated rights on the "life, liberty, property" principle that they feel was the sound basis for the priviledges and immunities clause. This has happened a few times, under the 5th Amendment, and the conservative Court feels it's better juridprudence. They're ready to overturn that decision from the Slaughterhouse Cases, if they get the chance. The result would be a somewhat narrower list of incorporated rights. You can believe that if you want. You think it's just a matter of legal principles and which applies best to a specific fact pattern? I don't. I see conservatives trying to maintain the status quo or to return to policies that were the norm in the 1950s. You give them too much credit. They are just people and nothing special. Believe me, I know and understand conservatives and judges are no different than anyone else. They like to hide behind legalisms to pretend they don't have a hidden agenda they are secretly trying to advance. I've never met one that didn't have one. Yes, it's tough isn't it? If you say the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to arms that makes them a threat to the safety of everyone in government. How do you come up with a reasoning that says people can have guns but not the kind or enough of them to threaten the government? I don't think you can. Nor has anyone made that argument. The safety issue is about other citizens. It's all over the place in the petitioner's brief and the related amici. I don't know about you Ed. I think you're being awful naive. You know that when they say it's not about the money, it's about the money? Well, when they say it's about the safety of the people, it's not. It's about the safety of the state. People say that armed citizens can't do anything about the army so the 2nd isn't relevant to the people's ability to overthrow the government. Just imagine if 10,000 armed citizens showed up at the main police station in your city. Think that would mean anything to the cops? It's been known for thousands of years that when the populace is aroused they can do just about anything and if they are an armed populace they are that much more of a force. The bottom line is what is the 2nd amendment about militias or something else. I say something else. Just an opinion, of course. I think you're getting carried away. In recent years, Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia have all argued against incorporation in various cases. Besides them, there is Harvard's Akhil Amar, probably one of the top three Constitutional scholars in the business today, who has argued persuasively against incorporation of the religious Establishment Clause, of all things, in his book _The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction_. That book today is considered the last word on the incorporation of the Bill of Rights by many legal scholars. I'm not familiar with him or his book so I can't comment on it. But you'll notice that those against incorporation all have one thing in common, ultra conservatism. I know nothing about Amar but is it possible he's a conservative too? Do you know? So, again, I think you have been a bit misled. Incorporation is not a done deal. We see states' rights emerge from time to time in various cases. The doctrine of substantive due process is an embarrassment among many legal scholars on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide, just as the 2nd Amendment itself is an embarrassment (recall Sanford Levinson's Yale Law Review article by that name: "The Embarrassing Second Amendment"). And, like Dred Scott, it's an open secret that the Slaughterhouse Cases are a bad precedent that we continue to live with and accept. Bad law and the US Supreme Court! Gee, how common is that? The point is that there is no standing doctrine that says "yes," except as the Court decides each issue. There is no "yes" on habeas corpus. There is no "yes" on grand juries. And there is no "yes" on the 2nd Amendment. The thing about the 2nd is that there are interpretations of it that could lead to an individual right, but not to incorporation. That's why the respondents in this case specifically chose to avoid the issue. That's the way of the law. Nothing changes until it absolutely has to and every nit has to be argued over endlessly. If it wasn't done like that look how many less billable hours attorneys would be entitled to. It takes forever to resolve legal issues and even when you think it's finally decided someone decides to argue it some more. No wonder lawyers bill by the hour instead of the job. Now, if you want to take issue with this and have the last word, go for it. I'm not interested in arguing the 2nd Amendment in terms that were laid out 20 or 30 years ago. I've done that dozens of times. I am interested in the case at hand and the way it's being argued. But that's all in the briefs. How the Court reacts to it will be in the oral argument. The rest is just background noise. I'm less interested in the briefs and the legal arguments because the opposing sides are so partisan. They will make any argument over any and every issue if they think it will help them win. They don't care about what the constitution really means because all they want is to advance their political goal. It's like a divorce case were all the sides care about is getting the most money and don't give a **** about what's fair. I'm about what is right. I think that is the nub of our debate. No, it's not. The nub of our debate is that the only relevent subject is the upcoming hearing about the 2nd Amendment. The case you're making, which is a watered-down version of the case made in several of the amicus briefs, is only half of the story. The other half is the *opposing* case that's being made. I hate to say it but I have become bored over most legal cases over the last few years because I see them as ways to avoid making necessary and hard decisions and instead simply as ways to argue with opponents without actually doing anything substantive. Ultimately, what I am saying is that to me the anti individual rights argument is simply without merit. If I was a judge ruling on the case I would throw out the petitioner's case as frivilous. You, on the other hand seem quite interested in the merits of the petitioners' arguments. But as I said, to me it's simple and one side has no argument. That happens all the time in court. People and business bring suits all the time that seem meritless. Sometimes they win too which is why everyone is so afraid of actually litigating. The other thing is that I think the court will come up with a gutless decision and the outcome of the case will be meaningless, and things will continue as they have in the past. Call me a cynic. I'm interested in an outcome that is right according to the actual wishes of the founding fathers and you are more interested in who comes up with a winning legal argument in the current proceeding. Those are quite different, not wrong just different. In other words, what you're interested in is that the Supreme Court sees things your way. d8-) But of course, If it was otherwise I wouldn't be human. If you would repost some of the links to those legal briefs I wouldn't mind taking a look at them. Finally... Here are all of them in one place: http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html Thanks. Hawke |
#51
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . Ed, I think that you are right about the lack of voter support for Nick's idea of secession. I also agree with Nick that our "leaders" have tromped merrily over the Constitution and usurped power not specifically granted to the Federal Government. This I think needs to be stopped. We had a Constitutional Amendment to stop booze. We didn't bother with an Amendment for the Drug war and are merrily locking away people when found with small amounts of Marijuana and in fact have created a similar industry to that run by the gangs in prohibition days. We didnt' bother with an Amendment when Bush latched on to the power to declare someone an enemy combatant and strip them of their Constitutionally guranteed rights. Further as Naomi Wolf says in her book, the changes that have been going on in our government parallel closely those used by historically famous dictators. I don't think that Constitutional Amendments are going to work anymore if the Elected Representatives choose to ignore the Constitution to start with. You have some good points, Stu, and I think a lot of the blame has to fall on Congress for not contesting Bush's usurpations. There's a lot of discussion in policy circles these days about how difficult it is to roll back presidential powers once they're implemented if Congress doesn't challenge them. For the most part, only Congress has standing to challenge those things in court. But such challenges rarely get to the Supreme Court because nobody likes a Constitutional crisis. The thing that makes it sticky right now is our semi-war footing. During a war, presidential powers usually are granted and allowed to slide. After the war is over, everyone understands that the president can't expect Congress to go along with any special powers assumed during the war. Congress now is somewhat between a rock and a hard place, because the realists know they can't just pull out of Iraq, and they're giving Bush as much slack as they can to prosecute the war and get it over with. Of course, there also are plenty in Congress who want out right now, but not enough to make anything stick, legally. But I'm among those who think they have allowed too much, and they should force a confrontation on many issues now, while Bush is a lame duck and has little sway over Republicans in Congress. Now is the time to roll those things back. -- Ed Huntress But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the first place? Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? |
#52
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:50:06 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote: snip But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the first place? Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? snip ================== You of course, are entirely correct, except that's 4 wars [Korea, Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, Iraq and Afganistan] and several actions [Balkins, Somalia, and Haiti] To rephrase an accurate observation into an even more pointed and more accurate observation: "If its not a Constitution, then its a suicide pact" [with many unwilling participants] |
#53
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
You have some good points, Stu, and I think a lot of the blame has to fall on Congress for not contesting Bush's usurpations. Congress passed NFA27 and GCA68. That would be the pot calling the kettle black. Wes |
#54
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
cavelamb himself wrote:
Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? Korea? No Vietnam No Balkans? No GW1? No GW2? No I like Ron Paul's position, if Congress won't declare, we are not going. Wes |
#55
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . Ed, I think that you are right about the lack of voter support for Nick's idea of secession. I also agree with Nick that our "leaders" have tromped merrily over the Constitution and usurped power not specifically granted to the Federal Government. This I think needs to be stopped. We had a Constitutional Amendment to stop booze. We didn't bother with an Amendment for the Drug war and are merrily locking away people when found with small amounts of Marijuana and in fact have created a similar industry to that run by the gangs in prohibition days. We didnt' bother with an Amendment when Bush latched on to the power to declare someone an enemy combatant and strip them of their Constitutionally guranteed rights. Further as Naomi Wolf says in her book, the changes that have been going on in our government parallel closely those used by historically famous dictators. I don't think that Constitutional Amendments are going to work anymore if the Elected Representatives choose to ignore the Constitution to start with. You have some good points, Stu, and I think a lot of the blame has to fall on Congress for not contesting Bush's usurpations. There's a lot of discussion in policy circles these days about how difficult it is to roll back presidential powers once they're implemented if Congress doesn't challenge them. For the most part, only Congress has standing to challenge those things in court. But such challenges rarely get to the Supreme Court because nobody likes a Constitutional crisis. The thing that makes it sticky right now is our semi-war footing. During a war, presidential powers usually are granted and allowed to slide. After the war is over, everyone understands that the president can't expect Congress to go along with any special powers assumed during the war. Congress now is somewhat between a rock and a hard place, because the realists know they can't just pull out of Iraq, and they're giving Bush as much slack as they can to prosecute the war and get it over with. Of course, there also are plenty in Congress who want out right now, but not enough to make anything stick, legally. But I'm among those who think they have allowed too much, and they should force a confrontation on many issues now, while Bush is a lame duck and has little sway over Republicans in Congress. Now is the time to roll those things back. -- Ed Huntress But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the first place? Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? Almost all wars, actually. There has been a formal Congressional declaration in only a handful. -- Ed Huntress |
#56
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
In article , cavelamb himself wrote:
But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the first place? Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself on what a declaration of war actually is, and is not. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#57
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article , cavelamb himself wrote: But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the first place? Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself on what a declaration of war actually is, and is not. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. Doug: I took your suggestion to learn more about the declaration of war and found an excellent, if a bit acerbic, description of the Declaration of War and Un declared Wars, and Authorized use of force. It seems that our government has found ways around the intent of the authors of the Constitution. The President has found a loop hole around the limits placed on his office. Good executive maneuvering but it opens too many doors for abuse of power and negates some of the checks and balances designed into our Constitution. Ron Paul was right. We need to get back to a Constitutional government. Stu |
#58
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
In article , "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article , cavelamb himself wrote: But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the first place? Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself on what a declaration of war actually is, and is not. Doug: I took your suggestion to learn more about the declaration of war and found an excellent, if a bit acerbic, description of the Declaration of War and Un declared Wars, and Authorized use of force. It seems that our government has found ways around the intent of the authors of the Constitution. The President has found a loop hole around the limits placed on his office. Good executive maneuvering but it opens too many doors for abuse of power and negates some of the checks and balances designed into our Constitution. Ron Paul was right. We need to get back to a Constitutional government. Perhaps you should do a little more digging, because you've missed the point: a declaration of war is a formal acknowledgement of a situation _that already exists_ -- see, for example, Franklin Roosevelt's speech on 8 Dec 1941 in which he requests Congress to issue a declaration of war. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#59
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . "Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article , cavelamb himself wrote: But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the first place? Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself on what a declaration of war actually is, and is not. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. Doug: I took your suggestion to learn more about the declaration of war and found an excellent, if a bit acerbic, description of the Declaration of War and Un declared Wars, and Authorized use of force. It seems that our government has found ways around the intent of the authors of the Constitution. The President has found a loop hole around the limits placed on his office. Good executive maneuvering but it opens too many doors for abuse of power and negates some of the checks and balances designed into our Constitution. Ron Paul was right. We need to get back to a Constitutional government. Stu Of the 100 or more military conflicts the US has been involved in, Congress has only declared war about a half-dozen times. There are some good reasons for this, because there are two fundamental problems with declaring war: First, you acknowledge sovereignty and legitimacy to the entity you're fighting, under international law. You don't want to grant legitimacy to the Taliban, for example. If you declare war against an entity that grabbed power illegitimately, or that you don't want to acknowledge that it is the true representative of a people, then you stay clear of formal declarations. They'll bite you in the ass. The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. This issue is so over-simplified in the popular discussions about it that it bears almost no relation to the political realities. Congress has handled it correctly for the most part: pass an enabling bill, don't make a formal declaration, and get on with the fight. Ron Paul's ideas are the current incarnation of the conservative bias toward isolationism, which was the dominant conservative view until WWII. It sounds good, it's well-motivated, and we'd probably do well to be as cautious about war as he suggests we should be. But it's also part of a broader isolationism that would be ruinous to the US in today's world. You can't be isolationist today. But you can be much more resistant to starting wars than we have been in recent decades, and we'll all be better off for it. -- Ed Huntress |
#60
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message .. . In article , cavelamb himself wrote: But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the first place? Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself on what a declaration of war actually is, and is not. Doug: I took your suggestion to learn more about the declaration of war and found an excellent, if a bit acerbic, description of the Declaration of War and Un declared Wars, and Authorized use of force. It seems that our government has found ways around the intent of the authors of the Constitution. The President has found a loop hole around the limits placed on his office. Good executive maneuvering but it opens too many doors for abuse of power and negates some of the checks and balances designed into our Constitution. Ron Paul was right. We need to get back to a Constitutional government. Perhaps you should do a little more digging, because you've missed the point: a declaration of war is a formal acknowledgement of a situation _that already exists_ -- see, for example, Franklin Roosevelt's speech on 8 Dec 1941 in which he requests Congress to issue a declaration of war. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. Evidently the issues being discussed are the basis for a continuing debate: From Wickipedia: "Extremely heated debate developed in the United States beginning on or around September 11, 2001. Opponents of the uses of military force since began to argue, chiefly, that the Iraq War was unconstitutional, because it lacked a clear declaration of war, and was waged over the objection of a significantly sized demographic in the United States. Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force. Such authorizations have included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that greatly increased American participation in the Vietnam War, and the recent "Authorization of the Use of Military Force" (AUMF) resolution that started the War in Iraq. Some question the legality of these authorizations of force. Many who support declarations of war argue that they keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people while, at the same time, honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress. Those who oppose requiring formal declarations of war argue that AUMFs satisfy constitutional requirements and have an established historical precedent (see Quasi-War). Furthermore, some have argued that the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief invest him with broad powers specific to "waging" and "commencing" war. The February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise: GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force. The courts have consistently refused to intervene in this matter[citation needed], and in practice presidents have the power to commit forces with congressional approval but without a declaration of war." My point remains that the President has taken on power that could easily, and in the case of secret prisons and torture, been severly abused. He can authorize the use of military force without review or approval of Congress. He can and has labelled individuals and groups of individuals as enemy combatants and stripped them of due process. Naomi Wolf in her book The End of America has shown the parallels with this shift of power to those conditions enabling the move to a dictatorship experienced in Europe. There needs to be a better defined set of checks and balances of Presidential power. Stu |
#61
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . "Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article , cavelamb himself wrote: But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the first place? Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself on what a declaration of war actually is, and is not. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. Doug: I took your suggestion to learn more about the declaration of war and found an excellent, if a bit acerbic, description of the Declaration of War and Un declared Wars, and Authorized use of force. It seems that our government has found ways around the intent of the authors of the Constitution. The President has found a loop hole around the limits placed on his office. Good executive maneuvering but it opens too many doors for abuse of power and negates some of the checks and balances designed into our Constitution. Ron Paul was right. We need to get back to a Constitutional government. Stu Of the 100 or more military conflicts the US has been involved in, Congress has only declared war about a half-dozen times. There are some good reasons for this, because there are two fundamental problems with declaring war: First, you acknowledge sovereignty and legitimacy to the entity you're fighting, under international law. You don't want to grant legitimacy to the Taliban, for example. If you declare war against an entity that grabbed power illegitimately, or that you don't want to acknowledge that it is the true representative of a people, then you stay clear of formal declarations. They'll bite you in the ass. The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. This issue is so over-simplified in the popular discussions about it that it bears almost no relation to the political realities. Congress has handled it correctly for the most part: pass an enabling bill, don't make a formal declaration, and get on with the fight. Ron Paul's ideas are the current incarnation of the conservative bias toward isolationism, which was the dominant conservative view until WWII. It sounds good, it's well-motivated, and we'd probably do well to be as cautious about war as he suggests we should be. But it's also part of a broader isolationism that would be ruinous to the US in today's world. You can't be isolationist today. But you can be much more resistant to starting wars than we have been in recent decades, and we'll all be better off for it. -- Ed Huntress Ed: My wife and I were hired by the Marshallese government to establish and operate the Disaster office for the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Due to agreements specified in their Compact of Free Association they were guaranteed disaster support from the US in the form of FEMA support. During that time we became very aware of the arrogant, ignorant diplomatic behavior of the US. We attended a party where there were Ambassadors to China, Japan and the UN. We listened to these Ambassadors talk and describe their view of the US. It was eye opening to say the least. We terminated our employment after engaging in an argument with the US Ambassador to the RMI. The argument was caused by the arrogant and ignorant behavior of FEMA. One example of which was they spent approximately $1M dollars constructing housing from prestwood panels with no stud reinforement in a severly tropical environment. Isolationist? No but our foreign policy creates some pretty bad images. We asked our boss who was the Chief Secretary of the Trust Territories after WWII (BTW the only Statesman I've ever met) which occupational force that controlled the Marshalls, that he found to be the most effective. The choices were Germany, Japan and the US. Expecting to hear the US who dumps $$ in there like crazy, he said the Germans. I later was a disaster consultant to the Aisian Development Bank where I wrote the Disaster Manual for the RMI. Approx 40% of the money flowing into the RMI from the Aisian Bank came from the US. While the RMI liked our money, we didn't win much respect due to our diplomats and their attitudes and behaviors. Isolationist? No, but critic of our foreing policies? You betcha. Condolezza Rice running about telling and applying pressure to other countries to be more like us is the worst kind of bad. Stu |
#62
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
2nd Amend. case
"Hawke" wrote in message
... I don't recall that but to me I am not sure what they will do. They may find it an individual right but I think they are just as likely not to. You do know that I think there is an individual right simply by my reading of the amendment and my knowledge of early American history. Oh, I'm not sure what they'll do, either. Predicting what the S.C. will do on any case is foolish, but it's still worth a guess. My guess is that they'll decide for an individual right; that they won't incorporate it at this point; and that they'll do something strange with the matter of scrutiny. And what they do about scrutiny will determine whether the case is remanded back to the Circuit Court of Appeals. How they will come down on this is difficult if not impossible to know but the best guess comes from the personal viewpoints of the justices. I don't see how they can remand this case. This case is ripe. They put it off for years when Rhenquest was in charge because he was dodging it. Now's the time to decide it especially with so many conservatives on the bench. That's not why they might remand the case. It's about levels of scrutiny, and the effect it would have on existing gun laws. This is all laid out clearly in the amicus brief from the Department of Justice and the original petitioner's brief. I have to say that it's entertaining to watch you recreate this case in your imagination, when the issues that are before the Court are all laid out on paper. d8-) And you're continuing to argue the 2nd itself, which really is a boring and burned-out enterprise for those who have been involved in these arguments for years, Hawke. I'm surprised you're still at it. Again, the interesting issue is how this case is going to be decided. You really must read the case if you're going to understand what's going on. As for Amar being a "conservative," I think you'd better look him up. He's become very important and likely will carry the banner after Tribe retires. He's collaborated with Tribe on various issues, including the 2nd Amendment. Let me know if you get around to reading the briefs. -- Ed Huntress |
#63
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . "Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article , cavelamb himself wrote: But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the first place? Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself on what a declaration of war actually is, and is not. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. Doug: I took your suggestion to learn more about the declaration of war and found an excellent, if a bit acerbic, description of the Declaration of War and Un declared Wars, and Authorized use of force. It seems that our government has found ways around the intent of the authors of the Constitution. The President has found a loop hole around the limits placed on his office. Good executive maneuvering but it opens too many doors for abuse of power and negates some of the checks and balances designed into our Constitution. Ron Paul was right. We need to get back to a Constitutional government. Stu Of the 100 or more military conflicts the US has been involved in, Congress has only declared war about a half-dozen times. There are some good reasons for this, because there are two fundamental problems with declaring war: First, you acknowledge sovereignty and legitimacy to the entity you're fighting, under international law. You don't want to grant legitimacy to the Taliban, for example. If you declare war against an entity that grabbed power illegitimately, or that you don't want to acknowledge that it is the true representative of a people, then you stay clear of formal declarations. They'll bite you in the ass. The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. This issue is so over-simplified in the popular discussions about it that it bears almost no relation to the political realities. Congress has handled it correctly for the most part: pass an enabling bill, don't make a formal declaration, and get on with the fight. Ron Paul's ideas are the current incarnation of the conservative bias toward isolationism, which was the dominant conservative view until WWII. It sounds good, it's well-motivated, and we'd probably do well to be as cautious about war as he suggests we should be. But it's also part of a broader isolationism that would be ruinous to the US in today's world. You can't be isolationist today. But you can be much more resistant to starting wars than we have been in recent decades, and we'll all be better off for it. -- Ed Huntress Ed: My wife and I were hired by the Marshallese government to establish and operate the Disaster office for the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Due to agreements specified in their Compact of Free Association they were guaranteed disaster support from the US in the form of FEMA support. During that time we became very aware of the arrogant, ignorant diplomatic behavior of the US. We attended a party where there were Ambassadors to China, Japan and the UN. We listened to these Ambassadors talk and describe their view of the US. It was eye opening to say the least. We terminated our employment after engaging in an argument with the US Ambassador to the RMI. The argument was caused by the arrogant and ignorant behavior of FEMA. One example of which was they spent approximately $1M dollars constructing housing from prestwood panels with no stud reinforement in a severly tropical environment. Isolationist? No but our foreign policy creates some pretty bad images. We asked our boss who was the Chief Secretary of the Trust Territories after WWII (BTW the only Statesman I've ever met) which occupational force that controlled the Marshalls, that he found to be the most effective. The choices were Germany, Japan and the US. Expecting to hear the US who dumps $$ in there like crazy, he said the Germans. I later was a disaster consultant to the Aisian Development Bank where I wrote the Disaster Manual for the RMI. Approx 40% of the money flowing into the RMI from the Aisian Bank came from the US. While the RMI liked our money, we didn't win much respect due to our diplomats and their attitudes and behaviors. Isolationist? No, but critic of our foreing policies? You betcha. Condolezza Rice running about telling and applying pressure to other countries to be more like us is the worst kind of bad. Stu So, how does this fit with your statement that we should "get back to Constitutional government," Stu? I don't disagree with you about the state of our foreign diplomacy (the reason I decided not to go into the diplomatic service, after spending three years spent studying comparative politics in the US and Europe). But that seems to me to argue for better diplomats rather than anything to do with the Constitution itself. -- Ed Huntress |
#64
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"nick hull" wrote in message .. . In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. The problem is that we are killing Iraqi civilians wholesale. There is insufficient differentiation between Saddam Hussein's troops and civilians. For every innocent civilian we kill, we make 2 enemies - just like Vietnam. Yup, war is hell. -- Ed Huntress |
#65
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote: The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. The problem is that we are killing Iraqi civilians wholesale. There is insufficient differentiation between Saddam Hussein's troops and civilians. For every innocent civilian we kill, we make 2 enemies - just like Vietnam. Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
#66
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
Ed, I think that you are right about the lack of voter support for Nick's idea of secession. I also agree with Nick that our "leaders" have tromped merrily over the Constitution and usurped power not specifically granted to the Federal Government. This I think needs to be stopped. We had a Constitutional Amendment to stop booze. We didn't bother with an Amendment for the Drug war and are merrily locking away people when found with small amounts of Marijuana and in fact have created a similar industry to that run by the gangs in prohibition days. We didnt' bother with an Amendment when Bush latched on to the power to declare someone an enemy combatant and strip them of their Constitutionally guranteed rights. Further as Naomi Wolf says in her book, the changes that have been going on in our government parallel closely those used by historically famous dictators. I don't think that Constitutional Amendments are going to work anymore if the Elected Representatives choose to ignore the Constitution to start with. You have some good points, Stu, and I think a lot of the blame has to fall on Congress for not contesting Bush's usurpations. There's a lot of discussion in policy circles these days about how difficult it is to roll back presidential powers once they're implemented if Congress doesn't challenge them. For the most part, only Congress has standing to challenge those things in court. But such challenges rarely get to the Supreme Court because nobody likes a Constitutional crisis. The thing that makes it sticky right now is our semi-war footing. During a war, presidential powers usually are granted and allowed to slide. After the war is over, everyone understands that the president can't expect Congress to go along with any special powers assumed during the war. Congress now is somewhat between a rock and a hard place, because the realists know they can't just pull out of Iraq, and they're giving Bush as much slack as they can to prosecute the war and get it over with. Of course, there also are plenty in Congress who want out right now, but not enough to make anything stick, legally. But I'm among those who think they have allowed too much, and they should force a confrontation on many issues now, while Bush is a lame duck and has little sway over Republicans in Congress. Now is the time to roll those things back. -- Ed Huntress But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the first place? Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? The problem is that if no one is willing to say that using the military to attack other nations is "war" then the Congress will never have a say in when the country goes to war. This runs completely contrary to the wishes of the Founders who specifically gave only the Congress the power to declare war. Little did they know that the modern president would take this duty over and make himself the one and only arbiter of whether the country goes to war. In other words, our president can act like a king and do whatever he wants with the military. If the Founding Fathers could see this they would be rolling in their graves. If the Congress was not so incredibly weak this wouldn't be a problem but in the time since WWII Congress has delegated the power to go to war to the executive branch. Clearly unconstitutional, but what can you do when the Supreme Court is a cabal of right wingers who believe in executive branch sovereignty and allow him free reign to do anything he wants? Hawke |
#67
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
Hawke wrote:
The problem is that if no one is willing to say that using the military to attack other nations is "war" then the Congress will never have a say in when the country goes to war. This runs completely contrary to the wishes of the Founders who specifically gave only the Congress the power to declare war. Little did they know that the modern president would take this duty over and make himself the one and only arbiter of whether the country goes to war. In other words, our president can act like a king and do whatever he wants with the military. If the Founding Fathers could see this they would be rolling in their graves. If they were able to roll over, they wouldn't be dead, and wouldn't need graves, you idiot. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
#68
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:57:41 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote: snip Little did they know that the modern president would take this duty over and make himself the one and only arbiter of whether the country goes to war. In other words, our president can act like a king and do whatever he wants with the military. snip ================ If I was a congressperson and wanted to retain my seat, this is exactly the line I would use. All Congress has to do is insert language making all funding non-fungible [i.e. can be used only for the purpose for which it was appropriated] in all the spending bills with draconian penalties and large rewards for evasion, and make sure the spending bills describe exactly where the personnel including not only the military but also mercenary contractors and contract assassins can be employed. For example they can force the redeployment of the US Marine garrison from Okinawa to the southern border of the US by providing funding only for troops stationed on the southern border and none for troops stationed in Japan. The GAO and other financial monitors continue to report huge sums of money and gigantic amounts of missing materials/supplies, specifically including military hardware and weapons, which cannot be accounted for. To a overwhelming degree the Congress in aggregate has earned (and continues to earn) the contempt with which it is treated by the Administration and in which it is held by the American electorate, and it appears large numbers of the current members have engaged in actions and activities which have rendered them especially vulnerable to "unofficial" pressures [translation: we got color pictures, tapes, and DVDs....] ranging from illicit sex with minors to gross bribery and mis-, mal-, and nonfeasance in office. The actions and warnings of the few honorable and honest members are overwhelmed by the pervasive institutional corruption and sleaze. When the "ship hits the fan," remember we brought it on our selves. |
#69
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
Ed Huntress wrote:
Of the 100 or more military conflicts the US has been involved in, Congress has only declared war about a half-dozen times. There are some good reasons for this, because there are two fundamental problems with declaring war: First, you acknowledge sovereignty and legitimacy to the entity you're fighting, under international law. You don't want to grant legitimacy to the Taliban, for example. If you declare war against an entity that grabbed power illegitimately, or that you don't want to acknowledge that it is the true representative of a people, then you stay clear of formal declarations. They'll bite you in the ass. The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. This issue is so over-simplified in the popular discussions about it that it bears almost no relation to the political realities. Congress has handled it correctly for the most part: pass an enabling bill, don't make a formal declaration, and get on with the fight. Ron Paul's ideas are the current incarnation of the conservative bias toward isolationism, which was the dominant conservative view until WWII. It sounds good, it's well-motivated, and we'd probably do well to be as cautious about war as he suggests we should be. But it's also part of a broader isolationism that would be ruinous to the US in today's world. You can't be isolationist today. But you can be much more resistant to starting wars than we have been in recent decades, and we'll all be better off for it. -- Ed Huntress So are we in a war, or a squabble? |
#70
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
nick hull wrote:
In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. The problem is that we are killing Iraqi civilians wholesale. There is insufficient differentiation between Saddam Hussein's troops and civilians. For every innocent civilian we kill, we make 2 enemies - just like Vietnam. Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ War is not about hearts and minds. It's about killing people and breaking things. Sometimes innocent people happen along in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sad, of course. But that's the eay it is with wars. And why tehy are to be avoided if possible. |
#71
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
When the president 'sues' (legal term) the congress to declare war
upon declaration all sorts of things happen. Legal control over the people start to shift and laws come into play. A true declared war also invokes a number of treaties around the world and force those countries into war along our sides. Some of which are SEATO, NATO, and a number of other non-public declarations with a number of countries. This can be a rather tricky red hot razor wire to walk upon. Martin Martin H. Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal. NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/ F. George McDuffee wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:50:06 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote: snip But isn't it the responsibility of the Congress to declare war in the first place? Something that has not yet been done for this (or the previous) war? snip ================== You of course, are entirely correct, except that's 4 wars [Korea, Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, Iraq and Afganistan] and several actions [Balkins, Somalia, and Haiti] To rephrase an accurate observation into an even more pointed and more accurate observation: "If its not a Constitution, then its a suicide pact" [with many unwilling participants] |
#72
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: Of the 100 or more military conflicts the US has been involved in, Congress has only declared war about a half-dozen times. There are some good reasons for this, because there are two fundamental problems with declaring war: First, you acknowledge sovereignty and legitimacy to the entity you're fighting, under international law. You don't want to grant legitimacy to the Taliban, for example. If you declare war against an entity that grabbed power illegitimately, or that you don't want to acknowledge that it is the true representative of a people, then you stay clear of formal declarations. They'll bite you in the ass. The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. This issue is so over-simplified in the popular discussions about it that it bears almost no relation to the political realities. Congress has handled it correctly for the most part: pass an enabling bill, don't make a formal declaration, and get on with the fight. Ron Paul's ideas are the current incarnation of the conservative bias toward isolationism, which was the dominant conservative view until WWII. It sounds good, it's well-motivated, and we'd probably do well to be as cautious about war as he suggests we should be. But it's also part of a broader isolationism that would be ruinous to the US in today's world. You can't be isolationist today. But you can be much more resistant to starting wars than we have been in recent decades, and we'll all be better off for it. -- Ed Huntress So are we in a war, or a squabble? We're in a war, but not with a country. There is no recognizable political entity at all; trying to identify one is what led us to invade Iraq. If we can only take on and beat a *country*, the thinking goes, we will have asserted our position and dismantled an antagonistic state. (But we still don't want to *declare* war, or we'll be at war with the people of that country, as well as the "evil ones." That could be messy.) But the enemy wasn't really a state. So now we have a generalized, amorphous, indeterminate war. Welcome to the new world. -- Ed Huntress |
#73
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. The problem is that we are killing Iraqi civilians wholesale. There is insufficient differentiation between Saddam Hussein's troops and civilians. For every innocent civilian we kill, we make 2 enemies - just like Vietnam. Yup, war is hell. -- Ed Huntress Yes it is, but that's what we say when we really mean tough **** for the innocent people we kill as we go after the ones we want. We offed a whole lot of them in Panama when we went after one guy, Manuel Noriega. Our view is if innocents get killed by us that's just the cost of doing business. You'll notice that our attitude is quite different when our people get killed as collateral damage. We make lots of enemies killing by so many civilians. By now it's to the point where we're just about out of friends. Talk about isolationists, we've isolated ourselves about as much as a country can. Not by choice but by our actions. It's just more of the stuff we've been pulling for years now. Hawke |
#74
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"Hawke" wrote in message ... The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. The problem is that we are killing Iraqi civilians wholesale. There is insufficient differentiation between Saddam Hussein's troops and civilians. For every innocent civilian we kill, we make 2 enemies - just like Vietnam. Yup, war is hell. -- Ed Huntress Yes it is, but that's what we say when we really mean tough **** for the innocent people we kill as we go after the ones we want. Or tough **** for us when the killing is on the other side. We offed a whole lot of them in Panama when we went after one guy, Manuel Noriega. Our view is if innocents get killed by us that's just the cost of doing business. You'll notice that our attitude is quite different when our people get killed as collateral damage. You have a short-sighted view of civilian casualties, Hawke. There use to be many, many more, in nearly every war. We make lots of enemies killing by so many civilians. By now it's to the point where we're just about out of friends. Talk about isolationists, we've isolated ourselves about as much as a country can. Not by choice but by our actions. It's just more of the stuff we've been pulling for years now. War is reaching a critical stage. In attempting to minimize civilian casualties we've created a hyper-sensitivity to them. This is a political complication that suggests war is going to go through another evolution, and probably fairly soon. I have no idea how it will evolve. Meantime, the "asymmetrical warfare" metaphor has become an apology for the fact that insurgents can hide among and behind civilians, forcing their adversaries to kill some civilians or capitulate. This, of course, is a serious war crime, a capital offense, under international law. But insurgents know that war crimes tribunals have become a farce and they have virtually no chance of being prosecuted. Stay tuned. Something will happen. Don't bet the farm on what it will be. -- Ed Huntress |
#75
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: Of the 100 or more military conflicts the US has been involved in, Congress has only declared war about a half-dozen times. There are some good reasons for this, because there are two fundamental problems with declaring war: First, you acknowledge sovereignty and legitimacy to the entity you're fighting, under international law. You don't want to grant legitimacy to the Taliban, for example. If you declare war against an entity that grabbed power illegitimately, or that you don't want to acknowledge that it is the true representative of a people, then you stay clear of formal declarations. They'll bite you in the ass. The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. This issue is so over-simplified in the popular discussions about it that it bears almost no relation to the political realities. Congress has handled it correctly for the most part: pass an enabling bill, don't make a formal declaration, and get on with the fight. Ron Paul's ideas are the current incarnation of the conservative bias toward isolationism, which was the dominant conservative view until WWII. It sounds good, it's well-motivated, and we'd probably do well to be as cautious about war as he suggests we should be. But it's also part of a broader isolationism that would be ruinous to the US in today's world. You can't be isolationist today. But you can be much more resistant to starting wars than we have been in recent decades, and we'll all be better off for it. -- Ed Huntress So are we in a war, or a squabble? We're in a war, but not with a country. There is no recognizable political entity at all; trying to identify one is what led us to invade Iraq. If we can only take on and beat a *country*, the thinking goes, we will have asserted our position and dismantled an antagonistic state. (But we still don't want to *declare* war, or we'll be at war with the people of that country, as well as the "evil ones." That could be messy.) But the enemy wasn't really a state. So now we have a generalized, amorphous, indeterminate war. Welcome to the new world. -- Ed Huntress Sorry Ed, but it sounds like the same old ****. How are we supposed to know when we win? Or lose? |
#76
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "cavelamb himself" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: Of the 100 or more military conflicts the US has been involved in, Congress has only declared war about a half-dozen times. There are some good reasons for this, because there are two fundamental problems with declaring war: First, you acknowledge sovereignty and legitimacy to the entity you're fighting, under international law. You don't want to grant legitimacy to the Taliban, for example. If you declare war against an entity that grabbed power illegitimately, or that you don't want to acknowledge that it is the true representative of a people, then you stay clear of formal declarations. They'll bite you in the ass. The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. This issue is so over-simplified in the popular discussions about it that it bears almost no relation to the political realities. Congress has handled it correctly for the most part: pass an enabling bill, don't make a formal declaration, and get on with the fight. Ron Paul's ideas are the current incarnation of the conservative bias toward isolationism, which was the dominant conservative view until WWII. It sounds good, it's well-motivated, and we'd probably do well to be as cautious about war as he suggests we should be. But it's also part of a broader isolationism that would be ruinous to the US in today's world. You can't be isolationist today. But you can be much more resistant to starting wars than we have been in recent decades, and we'll all be better off for it. -- Ed Huntress So are we in a war, or a squabble? We're in a war, but not with a country. There is no recognizable political entity at all; trying to identify one is what led us to invade Iraq. If we can only take on and beat a *country*, the thinking goes, we will have asserted our position and dismantled an antagonistic state. (But we still don't want to *declare* war, or we'll be at war with the people of that country, as well as the "evil ones." That could be messy.) But the enemy wasn't really a state. So now we have a generalized, amorphous, indeterminate war. Welcome to the new world. -- Ed Huntress Sorry Ed, but it sounds like the same old ****. How are we supposed to know when we win? Or lose? What is it you want to win? The old things -- stopping a country's threats of violence, etc. -- aren't available anymore. -- Ed Huntress |
#77
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
In article ,
cavelamb himself wrote: But the enemy wasn't really a state. So now we have a generalized, amorphous, indeterminate war. Welcome to the new world. -- Ed Huntress Sorry Ed, but it sounds like the same old ****. How are we supposed to know when we win? Or lose? It's simple; we lose when we go bankrupt by runaway inflation. We won't win, there is nothing to win. Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
#78
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message ... So are we in a war, or a squabble? We're in a war, but not with a country. There is no recognizable political entity at all; trying to identify one is what led us to invade Iraq. If we can only take on and beat a *country*, the thinking goes, we will have asserted our position and dismantled an antagonistic state. (But we still don't want to *declare* war, or we'll be at war with the people of that country, as well as the "evil ones." That could be messy.) But the enemy wasn't really a state. So now we have a generalized, amorphous, indeterminate war. Welcome to the new world. -- Ed Huntress Sorry Ed, but it sounds like the same old ****. How are we supposed to know when we win? Or lose? What is it you want to win? The old things -- stopping a country's threats of violence, etc. -- aren't available anymore. -- Ed Huntress Then it's perpetual war? |
#79
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
Yup, war is hell.
-- Ed Huntress Yes it is, but that's what we say when we really mean tough **** for the innocent people we kill as we go after the ones we want. Or tough **** for us when the killing is on the other side. Except for one thing, the killing of our people is so much less than it is on the other side. Remember we're masters of war, so when we inflict harm on our enemies we do it at a far higher rate than any of them do to us. In the process we kill enormous numbers of innocents. Iraq is proof of that. Look at the amount of insurgents we killed compared to how many civilians we killed. It's the civilians who have the high casualty rate. We offed a whole lot of them in Panama when we went after one guy, Manuel Noriega. Our view is if innocents get killed by us that's just the cost of doing business. You'll notice that our attitude is quite different when our people get killed as collateral damage. You have a short-sighted view of civilian casualties, Hawke. There use to be many, many more, in nearly every war. No I don't. You're looking at war as it is recently. Look at it historically and you find that it used to be soldiers and warriors who got killed not the civilians. Look at the numbers in WWI. Relatively few civilians were killed but millions of soldiers died. Same with the Civil War. Historically wars were fought among soldiers and civilian deaths were small. The 2nd WW was the aberation. We make lots of enemies killing by so many civilians. By now it's to the point where we're just about out of friends. Talk about isolationists, we've isolated ourselves about as much as a country can. Not by choice but by our actions. It's just more of the stuff we've been pulling for years now. War is reaching a critical stage. In attempting to minimize civilian casualties we've created a hyper-sensitivity to them. This is a political complication that suggests war is going to go through another evolution, and probably fairly soon. I have no idea how it will evolve. We may be trying to minimize civilian casualties but we're doing a bad job of it. Look at Afghanistan. We've killed not only innocent civilians but quite a few allies as well. It's true the attitude towards killing civilians is a lot better than it was in WWII but well intentioned or not we're still killing a lot of people we didn't intend to. I'm not sure war is going through any major changes. It looks pretty much the same as it always has to me. Different people and different weapons but aside from that it's not very different than in the past. As to the future, a prophet I'm not. Meantime, the "asymmetrical warfare" metaphor has become an apology for the fact that insurgents can hide among and behind civilians, forcing their adversaries to kill some civilians or capitulate. This, of course, is a serious war crime, a capital offense, under international law. But insurgents know that war crimes tribunals have become a farce and they have virtually no chance of being prosecuted. I think the insurgents know they will either be killed or imprisoned for life. They see the legal system of the infidels as a farce. They know if they are caught for anything it's prison for life. I think they're probably right. As far as hiding behind civilians that isn't a new idea in warfare either. Like I said, aside from weapons I don't see a lot of changes in warfare. Stay tuned. Something will happen. Don't bet the farm on what it will be. My bet is that for the most part things will remain the same. Now if we stop using force to get what we want that will surprise me. Hawke |
#80
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Secession
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: Of the 100 or more military conflicts the US has been involved in, Congress has only declared war about a half-dozen times. There are some good reasons for this, because there are two fundamental problems with declaring war: First, you acknowledge sovereignty and legitimacy to the entity you're fighting, under international law. You don't want to grant legitimacy to the Taliban, for example. If you declare war against an entity that grabbed power illegitimately, or that you don't want to acknowledge that it is the true representative of a people, then you stay clear of formal declarations. They'll bite you in the ass. The second problem is that a formal declaration of war, under law, amounts to a war against all of the people of that political entity. In Iraq, it would mean we were at war with the Iraqi people. We didn't want to do that. This issue is so over-simplified in the popular discussions about it that it bears almost no relation to the political realities. Congress has handled it correctly for the most part: pass an enabling bill, don't make a formal declaration, and get on with the fight. Ron Paul's ideas are the current incarnation of the conservative bias toward isolationism, which was the dominant conservative view until WWII. It sounds good, it's well-motivated, and we'd probably do well to be as cautious about war as he suggests we should be. But it's also part of a broader isolationism that would be ruinous to the US in today's world. You can't be isolationist today. But you can be much more resistant to starting wars than we have been in recent decades, and we'll all be better off for it. -- Ed Huntress So are we in a war, or a squabble? In Iraq we're not in a war. It's an occupation, pure and simple. It's no different than when the Nazis occupied France in WWII except that we're not Nazis, I think. Hawke |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
In case anyone needs: | Metalworking |