Bush Doesn't Understand The Constitution

[realdre]

Again I gotta explain the "Declaration of War" I wish you people would pay attention Im going to say this one more time.

Congress did not delcare war? Are you joking..I really hope so but I will explain it again of how you are.


A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.

Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President.

After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations eleven separate times.

Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war.

Here is the list of Wars that were never formally declared but infact very real..

1.) Quasi War
2.) First Barbary War
3.) Second Barbar War
4.) Raid of Slave Traffic
5.) Redress for Attack on US Navy vessel
6.) Intervention during Russian Civil War
7.) Protection of Lebanon
8.) Vietnam War
9.) Multinationl Force in Lebanon
10.) Operation Just Cause
11.) Persian Gulf War aka Desert Storm
12.) Operation Enduring Freedom
13.) Operation Iraqi Freedom


Presidents ( J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Buchannon, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, George HW Bush, George W Bush) all authorized these wars. The Korean War was not a war authorized by the U.S. Congress. President Harry S. Truman cited authority under United Nations resolutions. Major US Military involvement began with Task Force Smith on July 5th, 1950. A cease fire agreement was signed on July 27, 1953; however no formal treaty has been signed to this date.

Those who oppose waging war without declaration point to Article I of the Constitution, which reads The Congress shall have the power to declare war.

In the case of smaller conflicts not requiring large commitments of manpower and money, many Americans believe that precedents have already been set for acting without the need for declarations of war. In the case of major conflicts, however, debate is centered around the aforesaid words of the United States Constitution.

Those who believe that formal declarations of war are not necessary, argue that since the Constitution expressly prohibits the states from engaging in war without consent of Congress unless actually invaded or in imminent danger, that if a similar prohibition had been intended for the President, then such words would have also been written to effect it. Military connotations of the phrases engaging in war (used in the aforesaid prohibition) and levying war (used in the definition of treason) as opposed to the diplomatic connotations of the phrase declare war.

Further historical arguments point to the decisions to not issue a formal declaration of war preceding either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War, the latter decision being made by a Continental Congress comprising a number of those who went on to write the Constitution. Moreover, the term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the US Constitution. Instead the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War."

There is a precedent not requiring formal declarations of war and that AUMFs ( authorized use of military force ) satisfy constitutional requirements and have an established historical precedent. Look over the Quasi-War.

The Quasi-War was an undeclared war fought entirely at sea between the United States and France from 1798 to 1800. In the United States, the conflict is sometimes also referred to as the Undeclared War with France.

France had been America's major ally in the American Revolutionary War, and without its assistance the United States may not have won independence. But the new government of Revolutionary France viewed a 1794 commercial agreement between the United States and Great Britain, known as the Jay Treaty, as a violation of France's 1778 treaties with the United States.

The French began to seize American ships trading with their British enemies and refused to receive a new United States minister when he arrived in Paris in December 1796. In his annual message to Congress at the close of 1797, President John Adams reported on France's refusal to negotiate and spoke of the need "to place our country in a suitable posture of defense." In April of 1798, President Adams informed Congress of the infamous "XYZ Affair," in which French agents demanded a large bribe for the restoration of relations with the United States.

Increased depredations by privateers from Revolutionary France required the United States Navy to protect the expanding merchant shipping of the United States. The United States Congress authorized the President to acquire, arm, and man no more than twelve vessels, of up to twenty-two guns each. Under the terms of this act, several vessels were purchased and converted into ships of war.

The Quasi-War started on July 7, 1798 when Congress rescinded treaties with France. United States Naval squadrons then sought out and attacked the French privateers.

Now some have stated to me that the US Congress did not authorize President Bush to send forces to Iraq to start a war, but rather to enforce the UN Resolutions namley UN Resolution's numbers (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"...too bad this is only partly true.

First, off the Senate and the House of Representatives signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

What do you think that is? Honestly. It is for all definitive purposes a declaration of WAR.


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements. (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[realdre]

Now read Section 3. What does it say that comes first? Ohh I know numerically section 2 comes before section 3. However, section 3 overrides section 2. Now if the real goal if this resolution was to enforce all relelvant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, how comes that is not the order in section 3 subsection 1 instead of 2? Now for a moment lets go back into Section 2.

"(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts"-- What does it exactly mean to enforce through the UNSC all relevant reagarding Iraq...Now just how is one supposed to do that? Harsh language? Trade embargos? War, even? To be perfectly fair the term "strictly enforce" is undefined. But the UN itself does lend that to be several options according to the UNSC's own website, it states as follows;

* to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
* to investigate any dispute or situation which mightlead to international friction;
* to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
* to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
* to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
* to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
* to take military action against an aggressor;
* to recommend the admission of new Members;
* to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas";
* to recommend to the GeneralAssembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

Now only 2 of these are actions that can be taken in enforcing UN resolutions. The economic sanctions, and to take military action.

Now please define "strictly enforce" and how that is to be achieved in Section 2 subsection 1

Technically speaking Bush did not do anything illegal with regard to the war authorization in Iraq of 2002. October 16th, 2002 to be exact on the date to which he got specific authorization from this 109th Congress. He was required under law to report to really only 2 member of Congress...the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate within 48hrs. That's all folks he was required to do.

From Title 50 US Code Chapter 33 Section 1543
§ 1543. Reporting requirement

(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth.

A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) Other information reported

The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.

§ 1544. Congressional action

(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543

(a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress

(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,

(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or

(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

There is no constitutionally required format for Declarations of War in the US, and that perhaps is the heart of this matter.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Na

It is interesting to note 27 Dems votes YES, for this war in the Senate. Now all of the NO votes were from the Dems as well. That meants if all the Dems who voted for the war, would have voted NO, it would have been dead locked at 50 Yes and 50 No votes. Whereas, Cheney probably would have voted Yes. Then to me the DEMS would have a bit more credibility in this matter.


Now if you want to argue me whether this is a JUST WAR...that is a completley separate matter entirely.

[realdre]

"Just War theory" refers to modern political doctrines which promote the view that war is "just" (ie. justice), given satisfactory conditions. As "conditions" tend to be variable, open to interpretation, and otherwise subject to political obfuscation, the concept of Just War itself, even apart from any specific formulated doctrines, is controversial.

While proponents claim such views have a long "tradition," critics claim the application of "Just war" is only relativistic, and directly contradicts more universal philosophical traditions such as the Ethic of reciprocity.

he ethic of reciprocity, or the "The Golden Rule," is a fundamental moral principle found in virtually all major religions and cultures, which simply means "treat others as you want them to treat you." Its universality suggests an innate human altruism, and is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways:

* "Love your neighbor as yourself" - Moses (ca. 1525-1405 BCE) in the Torah, Leviticus
* "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others." - Confucius (ca. 551–479 BCE)
* "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." - Hillel (ca. 50 BCE-10 CE)
* "Do to others as you would have them do unto to you." - Jesus (ca. 5 BCE—33 CE) in the Gospels,Luke 6:31;Luke 10:27 (affirming of Moses);Matthew 7:12;
* "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you" — Muhammad (c. 571 – 632 CE) in The Farewell Sermon.


The ethic of reciprocity or Golden Rule of ethics, should not be confused with a "rule" in the semantic or logical sense. A logical loophole in the positive form of Golden "rule" is that it would require a masochist to harm others, even without their consent, if that is what the masochist would wish for himself. This loophole can be addressed by invoking a supplementary rule, which is sometimes called the silver rule. This states "treat others in the way that they wish to be treated". However, the silver rule may create another logical loophole. In a situation where an individual's background or belief may offend the sentiment of the majority, the silver rule may imply ethical majoritarianism if the Golden rule is enforced as if it were a law. An absurd example may be Adolf Hitler's reference to Otto Weininger, which was something in the effect of "There was only one decent Jew, and he killed himself."

Weininger was a Christian convert with Jewish background who was well known for his view about supposed superiority of Christianity and Christian character over Judaism and Jewishness.


Legal positivism is a school of thought in jurisprudence and the philosophy of law. The principal claims of legal positivism are that:

* laws are rules made by human beings;
* there is no inherent or necessary connection between law and ethics, hence morality.


Legal positivism also implies that law is something that can be separated from ethics. There are, it is argued, legal rules that have no ethical component.

Legal positivism is not synonymous with ethical positivism, or for that matter with moral relativism. It is at least a possible viewpoint that there exists a natural ethical code while maintaining that its translation into law remains local and contingent.

The argument of legal positivism is not that ethics is irrelevant to every law; rather, that law and ethics are two different things, two fields that occasionally overlap but whose underlying logic remains separate. The legal positivist emphasizes that the law that forbids theft and the law that commands that you drive on the proper side of the road are two exemplars of the same phenom.

[Nathan Morrison]

Dre,
I'm telling you frankly I don't have the time or the inclination to read all of that crap.

Let's get to the point.

What about the Constitution isn't Law to you?

I quoted the section of THE CONSTITUION that tells you clearly THIS IS LAW.

You cannot seperate International treaties from the constitution, they are WRITTEN IN.

I understand that court cases have been argued and even won in the past under such ignorance, but that doesn't excuse this level of blatant disregard for the truth.

I personally don't care if you like International Law or not, you are oblidged to follow it, as are ALL americans including the President.

It is not only International Law, it's US law, and tha's th last time I'm going to say it.

Arguing that point just makes you look foolish Dre. You need read no further than what has already been posted in this thread for your evidence.

[wyldberi]

realdre said:

Once again geneva is optional....I citied the case for you of where that determination comes from....read the case file. First off I could care less if Israel cannot use cluster bombs, in warfare you should be allowed to use any means necessary. Limiting what kind of weapon is even more silly only because the true enemy of war itself has yet to be stopped which is war. And they have not done that is the UN or Geneva. So I find that to be a little on the bs side when it comes to who cant use what kind of weapon.

I still feel as you know Geneva is second fiddle to the Constitution. These people do not fit under the Geneva definition of "prisoner of war", nor do they fit under the genevea definition of "civilian", "protected persons".

Personally, Bush found a legal international loophole. Thats it. And you he beat the system. If you go to charge him with these alleged violations, A) you cannot prove he himself sanctioned them and said torture them, B) not knowing is not the same as masterminding such a plot, C) He has legal precedence in the Quirin case.

The only argument I keep is getting is that they are Human and should not be treated as such. On a social level yes you are correct. However Im talking about legal which has nothing to do with morality or ethical considerations. Its called legal povitism.

It may as well be called legal "Rovism". It's simply not an argument. No rules of war apply to this situation, because it is no war to begin with.

bush has no leg to stand upon to justify what's taken place. He is, simply put, a traitor. He assumed office under illegitimate circumstances with the intent to weaken our nation every which way he could while enriching his cronies. He has never upheld his oath of office and actively worked to undermine the Constitution.

Following WW2, at Nuermberg (sp?) the U.S. established rules of conduct that places the leaders of a nation and their military in the primary position of responsibility for the actions of that military. bush and rumsfeld are war criminals.

As for your opening statements: "in warfare you should be allowed to use any means necessary. Limiting what kind of weapon"; this is an outrageous claim to make. What it says is, Iran can declare war on the U.S. and simultaneously use suitcase nukes on a dozen metropolitan centers to open the conflict. Congratulations. You've justified the destruction of the human race and the earth's biosphere. Bring on the rapture!

[realdre]

Ive read Article VI this is what this all comes down too. The Constitution far supercedes any international treaty, agreement, contract, deal however you wish to define.

Under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, for example, the treaties of the United States are “the Supreme Law of the Land,” on a par with federal legislation, “and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Supreme Court has testablished that treaties may even be interpreted and applied against the executive branch, as in Hamdan itself, although the president’s views are entitled to substantial deference.

By contrast, customary international law, or “the law of nations,” is not explicitly included in the supremacy clause and in this respect resembles other forms of federal law such as executive orders and administrative regulations.

The earliest Supreme Court precedent interpreting the effect of the Supremacy Clause on treaties is Ware v. Hylton.There, the Court had to determine whether the Treaty of Peace ending the Revolutionary War nullified a Virginia statute that allowed confiscation of British property. Justice Chase stated that the treaty was "not a stipulation that certain acts shall be done, and that it was necessary for the legislatures of individual states, to do these acts; but that it is an express agreement, that certain things shall not be permitted [by] the American courts of justice . . . ."The Virginia statute had to be preempted because " treaty cannot be the supreme law of the land, that is of all the United States, if any act of a State Legislature can stand in its way."Four Justices submitted opinions concurring in the judgment; only Justice Iredell thought that the treaty was non-self-executing.As with Foster and Edye, the Ware Court believed the Supremacy Clause made international agreements that were self-executing-rather than executory-domestic law without the need for implementing legislation. Thus, if a treaty is self-executing as a matter of international law, then the treaty is self-executing under the Supremacy Clause as a matter of U.S. law.

Ware v. Hylton 3 U.S. 199 (1796)

This case involved the Treaty of Paris, which established peace in 1783. A Virginian owed a debt to a British subject. A Virginia law provided for the confiscation of such debts on the ground the the debt was owed to an alien enemy. The British subject (actually, his administrator) sued in a federal court to recover on the bond. The administrator argued that the Treaty of Paris ensured the collection of such debts.

Four of the five justices wrote opinions. It was the practice of the day for the Court to issue opinions seriatim, or one after another. There was no "opinion for the Court." Collectively, the justices held that federal courts had the power to determine the constitutionality of state laws. They invalidated the Virginia law under the supremacy clause and, in the words of a distinguished scholar of the period, "established for all time [the Supreme Court's] power of judicial review of state laws."

They never stated officially that international treaties were on the same level as the US Constitutiton. Rather that theory that international law is concurrent with the US Consitutiton is implied is an assumed opinion, same way that corporations are assumed to have a right to personhood. This is pre Marbury V Madison...

This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."

Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:

"Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others".

pg 317 - "The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson," A. Koch & Wm. Peden, Random House 1944, renewed 1972. Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803, Ibid. pg 573

Clause 2 - "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution [of any state] or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Clause 3 - "The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executives and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several states, shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support this Constitution ."

Laws made in pursuance of this Constitution are laws which are made within the strict and limited confines of the Constitution itself. No federal, state, or international law, rule or bureaucratic regulation and no state constitution can supersede B or be repugnant to B this Constitution.

Treaties made under the authority of the United States... the United States (federal government) was authorized by and on behalf of the people and in pursuance of this Constitution to enter into certain treaties with other governments. The United States (federal government) obtains its authority solely from the Constitution. It would be ludicrous to think that it has the power to circumvent (via treaties) that which grants it its authority.

In Clause 3, it is made clear that every elected official, both federal and state, is bound by oath to support this Constitution. Who can rightly, and genuinely claim to be given the power to destroy that which they are elected and sworn to uphold?

The powers granted by the Constitution cannot sanely be construed to provide the authority to usurp, pre-empt or eradicate it.

The U.S. Supreme Court as cited above correctly ruled that the supremacy of the Constitution overrides treaties. It should be noted that if any Court, be it a State, Federal or the U.S. Supreme Court, should ever rule otherwise, the decision would be repugnant to the Constitution and the ruling would be null and void. The answer to this question is self-evident.

The Constitution authorizes the United States to enter into treaties with other nations. The word "A nation" although not explicit, is certainly implied. The United Nations is an Organization - a Global Corporate Bureaucracy.

Therefore making Geneva which is a UN charter agreement is completely invalid as to the rule of law.

[realdre]

wyldberi said:

realdre said:

Once again geneva is optional....I citied the case for you of where that determination comes from....read the case file. First off I could care less if Israel cannot use cluster bombs, in warfare you should be allowed to use any means necessary. Limiting what kind of weapon is even more silly only because the true enemy of war itself has yet to be stopped which is war. And they have not done that is the UN or Geneva. So I find that to be a little on the bs side when it comes to who cant use what kind of weapon.

I still feel as you know Geneva is second fiddle to the Constitution. These people do not fit under the Geneva definition of "prisoner of war", nor do they fit under the genevea definition of "civilian", "protected persons".

Personally, Bush found a legal international loophole. Thats it. And you he beat the system. If you go to charge him with these alleged violations, A) you cannot prove he himself sanctioned them and said torture them, B) not knowing is not the same as masterminding such a plot, C) He has legal precedence in the Quirin case.

The only argument I keep is getting is that they are Human and should not be treated as such. On a social level yes you are correct. However Im talking about legal which has nothing to do with morality or ethical considerations. Its called legal povitism.

It may as well be called legal "Rovism". It's simply not an argument. No rules of war apply to this situation, because it is no war to begin with.

bush has no leg to stand upon to justify what's taken place. He is, simply put, a traitor. He assumed office under illegitimate circumstances with the intent to weaken our nation every which way he could while enriching his cronies. He has never upheld his oath of office and actively worked to undermine the Constitution.

Following WW2, at Nuermberg (sp?) the U.S. established rules of conduct that places the leaders of a nation and their military in the primary position of responsibility for the actions of that military. bush and rumsfeld are war criminals.

As for your opening statements: "in warfare you should be allowed to use any means necessary. Limiting what kind of weapon"; this is an outrageous claim to make. What it says is, Iran can declare war on the U.S. and simultaneously use suitcase nukes on a dozen metropolitan centers to open the conflict. Congratulations. You've justified the destruction of the human race and the earth's biosphere. Bring on the rapture!

My point is say the US and Iran went to war tomorrow, what you gonna do? Run behind the both of them and say NO NO NO cant use that weapon, use these instead? Its not realistic. The reality is both are going to use the weapons that are available to them, both can choose not to use NUKES. But can you realistically stop them from doing so? NO.

Atomic weapons dont exist just because they look cool...they are their for a purpose and if there was no real intent on anyone using them other countries would not want them as bad. Personally I think its all about bragging. Give every nation atleast one atomic weapon...do you really think some countries wont use them once they get one?

Or will they limit their arsenal because they have true global concern about affecting others in their warfare? It wont happen and to think so is fancy. If nuclear weapons are used, I just would not be surprised by it.

Kerry BACKED OUT like a pregnant dog on challenging the 2004 election I dont know why people forget to mention that info. He couldve but he backed out, nuff said. We couldve had long invesitgations before he assumed office to ensure what really happend in OHIO but NO, he said f**k it, it wasnt worth him making a scence. Guess he really didnt give a nuts? Why because all politicians like it or not are on the same team.

I still do not know where this concept of "good warfare" as Im going to call it comes from. It has never existed. War in itself is an unethical business but people believe it can be fought in an ethical manner, that is an oxymoron. Wars are unethical, dirty, atrocious, evil. Whatever adjective you prefer. The shooting and bombing doesnt end at 4pm for tea breaks. You regroup you strike later but always on the ready.

[wyldberi]

Bye, realdre.

[realdre]

I do hope you are not quitting over a disagreement in philosophies....thats truly sader.

[Nathan Morrison]

look to me like she said bye to you Dre, not to the board LOL

YOU STILL DON"T GET IT. There IS NO SEPARATION between international treaties and the constitution.

International treaties ARE A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION> Neither you nor any lawyer can validly seperate the two. It cannot be done.

You are listing interpretations that say they do. They are interpretations, and nothing more.

Talk about holding ZERO Legal weight.

I'm not surprised she's done arguing with you about this. So am I.

If you can't read Article IV to include THE WORDS THAT ARE IN IT, I don't have the inclination to convince you to do so.

Don't worry Wyld, Dre simply cannot admit he's wrong. It's starting to remind me of a certain President I know... LOL

[realdre]

I also cited 3 COURT CASES...to back up my claims...

[realdre]

I can admit when Im wrong...others just cant admit when Im correct.

I consider this matter closed.

[cuppajoe]

I think Bush understands the Constitution just fine. He knows it, and the Bill of Rights, are in the way of a fascist takeover (those who coach him draw lots of cartoons so he gets the basic points) and he knows Constitution bad, Bill of Rights, BAD...go bye bye.

[powers]

Dre's position on how treaties may be treated as optional suggestions might be a true one. All laws, treaties and constitutions are simply words that have been debated about and voted on by a group of people and then placed on paper. At it's surface, it is just as valid as the next comic book or dan brown novel.

Unfortunately for Dre, respect for these laws, treaties and constitutions are required for any system of foriegn policy or established government. They are what this world is based upon.

Perhaps Dre will find trouble when future employers don't give him a paycheck for the time he has worked because the contract they each signed was just an optional piece of paper. Perhaps the money he had saved would not be accepted by a law agency because, again, it's just paper that does not need to be recognized as actual value. Maybe it'll all work out okay in the end as he realizes that his car payments, rental agreements, and grocery bills are all unnecessary pieces of paper.

Oh what a day that would be when laws are optional and we can all decide what to recognize as true.

Oh what a day it would be when chaos runs and democracy dies.

[wyldberi]

Yes, realdre may have had some valid points in regards to some of the things he addressed. I found his arguments to be tedious, because he failed to respond directly to the posts I and Morrison had made.

The current forces leading the republican party seem to believe they can redefine reality by redefining words. It reminds me of a New Age cult. "Picture in your mind a green rope extending from the base of your spine to the core of the earth . . . Now picture someone walking up to you and handing you a cashier's check for $10,000,000.00 . . ." The power of positive thinking may be useful in some respects, but when it comes to things like: "Picture Saddam Hussein having vast fields of weapons of mass destruction poised to attack America and its citizens . . ." There needs to be a consensus view of what reality is.

realdre's posts seemed more like an attempt to back up this administration's positions than they were an attempt to discuss the issue at hand. I no longer have the patience to bother myself with people who cannot acknowledge or challenge the validity of what is being said. It doesn't matter where the person's loyalty lies, I can't allow "my beautiful mind to be sullied with such disparaging thoughts."