Not sure why that was directed at me since I have defended subcontracting with the military on these very boards. (Blackwater, KBR, etc.) I have even posted that our Constitution allows for our government to use the free market for common defense with letters of marque and reprisal.
Guess I'm just an easy target.
You are an easy target!
Free market answer to say Iraq would not be for the gov't to subcontract because the truth is, Saddam's only threat to the US if you even want to call it that was his threats and attempts of
trading oil for Euro's instead of dollars which threatened the supremacy of the dollar and it's global reserve currency status. Between himself, Osama, Chavez and Iran who a few years back out of nowhere became the next subject matter of invasion
(wonder why) along with the help of a few silent partners, they may have the last laugh. Other than that, Saddam's only threat was what we over the years had given him and it's known now that he either used it up or it was uncovered in the post Gulf War era before 2003'. He even
admitted and the facts seem to support that his talk was all BS and that he was playing a game of political chicken and got called on his bluff. A paranoid, murderous idiot to his own, he was that but I see no threat in him to the United States.
Remove this from the table and it leaves one other reason to invade and that was over oil at the pleasure of the Saudis,
their pleasure of course (notice the price in the 1980's when another war in the region was happening?) and in a larger picture of Caspian Basin oil interests. Oh that in itself is an interesting and very worthy study in geo/economic politics especially the Caspian Sea drilling turf contracts.
Being that these were the real purpose of the war then the true free market approach would have been for all those various business interests to pay and hire for themselves the Blackwaters, KBRs, etc. by raising capital through investors or raising the costs of their products and forcing the consumers of such to pay for it all. Neither gov't nor taxpayer would have any stake in the whole matter and at the same time, those same businesses also would not recieve any special treatment, subsidy or tax advantage over any other company or individual person so there the economic playing field would be level for all. No one company by political advantage would be able to bury a burden or cost on the taxpayer and therefore the potential for the best allocation of resources would take place.
Truth is, no war would take place because the return on investment isn't worth the allocation of capital and resources. Free markets would force both sides to negocitate a workable fair agreement without force of fraud. I wonder how many countries agree to inequitable contracts with US business interests because these same interests have the US taxapayer paying "Tough Tony" to come in as the shake down guy to get them to play US interest ball. I don't see that kind of action at all in what the founding fathers had in mind in regards to self defense. If anything, it sounds more like King George, you know, the guy they fought against to make this country happen!
Why must we continue to ignore?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Read Article 6 of the US Constitution:
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
There's your achilles heel and the reason I've said most often, "GO READ TREATY LAW!"
In 1919' an international organization formed out of the Versailles Treaty known as the International Labor Organization and in 1934' the United States became an official member. ILO is even codified under Title 22 USC Chapter 7, sec. 271 as an official recognized international body to which we have binding international agreements. While you are at the link, look over the many other bodies listed we have other agreements with and the considering Art. 6 above maybe a tinkling of why maybe the constitution you so love seems to get ignored all the time?
Nationalized Healthcare?
How did we get social security when it seems so contary to the organic constitution? Hmmmmm! ILO in 1934',
Social Security Act in 1935' but did you know that this act passed in August of 1935' was the 2nd version as the first was overturned by SCOTUS in May of 1935'? You see gov't likes to float and test ideas so in 1934' our good gov't passed a social security act over those workers only who engaged in Interstate transportation, there's the commerce clause again, and in the case of Railroad Retirement Board v Alton R. Co. 295 U.S. 330, 368, 55 S.Ct. 758, 771 (1935). The court said the following in it's opinion.
"The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power."
They learned and came back 3 months later with what we have today and when it was tested at SCOTUS in Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v Davis 301 U.S. 548, 57 S.Ct. 883 (1937) the court in upholding the SSA said the following:
The proceeds of the excise when collected are paid into the Treasury at Washington, and thereafter are subject to appropriation like public moneys generally. Cincinnati Soap Co.301 U.S. 308, 57 S.Ct. 764, 81 L.Ed. ___, May 3, 1937
You see, in the original act the gov't argued that SS was an insurance plan if you will and the high court correctly ruled that Congress had no authority. In Steward Machine and also in another case at the time Helvering v. Davis, the gov't argued that SS was an excise tax on employment and that this tax would go into the general treasury and it was to Congress how the monies would then be appropiated. Congress clearly has taxing authority under Art. 1 Sec 8 and therefore SCOTUS ruled in the gov't favor. This is also why there is no seperate individual trust funds set up because to do so would void the conditions of Steward Machine and open the gov't up to a claim. Social Security is a budget item and is appropiated funds for it's functioning purposes.
Now we have article 22 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of which we are a signatory that sez:
"Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co­operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality."
SS therefore is most likely going nowhere and Washington DC knows it. Why the lesson on Social Security when the issue is healthcare?
What's out there in treaty land that you aren't aware but in fact voids your constitution and gives full jurisdictional powers to Washington to do this. Remember, we've had single payer for 65 year plus folks for a long time so single payer is settled. Treaty law again?
BTW:Want to see how important the
ILO was to the passage of Social Security. From the book, "The Making of the New Deal, The Insiders Speak"
