Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 298632" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Part 2</p><p></p><p>OK, leave something like the current SS model to the states or local communties to do and not at the federal level. I like that. We could do the same for welfare right? How about transportation? Energy? I know you'll agree with education! And the list goes on and on. I bet we'll find all kind of common ground and our federal gov't will be in a nice small package and we'll be dancing in the streets.</p><p></p><p>OK, here's where it gets a bit ugly. The federal constitutuion delegates in Art. 1 Sec. 1 of the US Constitution what is called the "vesting clause" and among that is the power to Congress to declare war. It also turns out that the Executive and Judical branch has their vesting clauses as well in Art. 2 (executive) and Art. 3 (Judical) but for now let's consider on the power of Congress to declare war. Now the Constitution makes no comment on the method or the look of what a war declaration would look or should even say but we can look back and see from past practice but we'll do that later.</p><p></p><p>Let's move on to the 2nd part of this equation and the executive branch and the powers of the President. What's his role in this? Art. 2 Sec. 2 is the Presidential Powers section and among his authority is the role of commander-n-chief. Here it is:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Militia, now where have we heard this term before. Could it be here?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Now this IMO follows very closely with your ideas of letting the States control the larger parts of governance as in the original, we didn't have mass standing armed forces like we do today. People volunteered for their local militias who were overseen by the State's governors and the President in order to use those forces had by Constitutional law, be authorized with declaration of war to call up those forces for federal serve. This was one of the mainstays of State's rights and in fact the 2nd amendment was a State's rights amendment. The governor's and the Senate until 1913' elected by the State legislatures should be the one's opposing federal gun control laws as this violates the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment State's Rights clause and thus the people of the several states!</p><p></p><p>A side bar note, I wonder if there was any connection to the fact that in 1913' we eliminated the State legislatures from selecting Senators and going to majority populace vote and also eliminating one of the major tenets of checks and balances, we also got the federal direct taxation of the citizen within the several states via the 16th amendment income tax and then as the year closed in an almost secret session of Congress (most had gone home for Christmas) our money system was monopolized into the hands of a quasi-private banking system known as the Federal Reserve but that's a whole other issue in itself. Congress has the power to coin money in Art. 1 sec. 10 and it's specific as by what measure:</p><p> Most people rarely ever read this part!</p><p></p><p>OK, back to the point and this is where it gets real tricky. You say the federal gov't shouldn't be in all these other areas and that the States or local govt's should be the final decider of this and in fact IMO the organic constitution fully backs you up on what you say. However, those same powers in those areas reserves for the states also applied in a larger scale when it came to the use of military force at the federal level. It requires the Congress to declare war, in which the President as commander can authorize the governors to send forth the State and local militias for federal service. Outside that declaration, the President has no authority to call forth. In the spirit of checks and balance the governor acts as such outside the Congress having acted.</p><p></p><p>But let's look at bit closer in Art. 1 Sec. 8 pertaining to the use of an army and the militias.</p><p></p><p>Consider these for a moment.</p><p></p><p>Under Sec. 8 the enumerated powers it sez:</p><p></p><p>"The Congress shall have power, (and now some of those listed powers)</p><p></p><p><em>To raise and support armies,but no appropiation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;</em></p><p></p><p><em>To provide and maintain a navy;</em></p><p></p><p><em>To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;</em></p><p></p><p>Well what can the President do?</p><p></p><p>Art. 2 is quoted above and this is the extent of his Constitutional authority as it relates to his duties as commander. He must first be authorized by Congress with a war declaration and then and only then is he free to call forth the militias. As for a standing army, Congress can other authorize this according to sec. 8 powers to last no longer than 2 years or in other words, from my reading of the organic Constitution, there is no authority to maintain a standing army beyond 2 years and then that army is the State militia called into service. But there is authority for a navy because the Federal gov't has authority and jurisdiction over international affairs and as such a Navy is needed to regulate the high seas as those are international. But in the case of a standing army, from my reading that authority is very limited and mostly a function of the States.</p><p></p><p>Now, going back to what you said earlier:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>When it comes to limited gov't, when it comes to the individual within the States how far are you willing to go in allowing them to escape the over reach of what IMO is unConstitutional authority? You seem willing in regards to SS, healthcare, education, etc. but are those just convienent choices based on political belief or agenda? Look I know what I'm suggesting is tough and goes against a whole lot of what we believe and what we have in the real world or at least been led to believe but if we make convience choices regarding the Constitution, then it does come down to the fact that we will be tossed too and fro with the political winds of passion and in time fall further and further into the political abyss.</p><p></p><p>As for how we defend ourselves under these seemingly limited conditions in today's world? Consider the other Congressional authority within the same Sec 8 as teh power to declare war exists. In total it reads as follows:</p><p></p><p>"Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal and makes rules of capture on land and water."</p><p></p><p>The letter of Marque and reprisal IMO should have been the proper response to 9/11 and the following actions but the only person to raise such were Ron Paul <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080409135228/http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20080409135228/http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm</a> What is a letter of Marque? A rough idea if you like. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque#_note-3" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque#_note-3</a></p><p></p><p>So you see, the founders understood that every situation doesn't always require a wholesale Declaration of War and had mechanisms in place for such smaller events below wholesale national invasion. Isn't odd the founders went so far to not have a standing army as this was seen in their day as the first step towards empire. Now we openly accept it as fact and no one challenges to politician who declares himself a follower of the Constitution and even so far as to say he will apppoint "originalists" buzz word for constitutionalist to the high court to further the cause of the limited gov't republic.</p><p></p><p>Again AV, I don't pretend these are easy choices by any stretch, in fact they're very tough choices but we live in a system of precedense and the very one you set today, your political opposites will use tomorrow to set their own and the visious cycle goes on and on. Where and when do we stand up, take a firm stand even in the face of risk and choose a course for ourselves and not one used against us under the banner of noble collectivism.</p><p></p><p>Just another POV to consider.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 298632, member: 2189"] Part 2 OK, leave something like the current SS model to the states or local communties to do and not at the federal level. I like that. We could do the same for welfare right? How about transportation? Energy? I know you'll agree with education! And the list goes on and on. I bet we'll find all kind of common ground and our federal gov't will be in a nice small package and we'll be dancing in the streets. OK, here's where it gets a bit ugly. The federal constitutuion delegates in Art. 1 Sec. 1 of the US Constitution what is called the "vesting clause" and among that is the power to Congress to declare war. It also turns out that the Executive and Judical branch has their vesting clauses as well in Art. 2 (executive) and Art. 3 (Judical) but for now let's consider on the power of Congress to declare war. Now the Constitution makes no comment on the method or the look of what a war declaration would look or should even say but we can look back and see from past practice but we'll do that later. Let's move on to the 2nd part of this equation and the executive branch and the powers of the President. What's his role in this? Art. 2 Sec. 2 is the Presidential Powers section and among his authority is the role of commander-n-chief. Here it is: Militia, now where have we heard this term before. Could it be here? Now this IMO follows very closely with your ideas of letting the States control the larger parts of governance as in the original, we didn't have mass standing armed forces like we do today. People volunteered for their local militias who were overseen by the State's governors and the President in order to use those forces had by Constitutional law, be authorized with declaration of war to call up those forces for federal serve. This was one of the mainstays of State's rights and in fact the 2nd amendment was a State's rights amendment. The governor's and the Senate until 1913' elected by the State legislatures should be the one's opposing federal gun control laws as this violates the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment State's Rights clause and thus the people of the several states! A side bar note, I wonder if there was any connection to the fact that in 1913' we eliminated the State legislatures from selecting Senators and going to majority populace vote and also eliminating one of the major tenets of checks and balances, we also got the federal direct taxation of the citizen within the several states via the 16th amendment income tax and then as the year closed in an almost secret session of Congress (most had gone home for Christmas) our money system was monopolized into the hands of a quasi-private banking system known as the Federal Reserve but that's a whole other issue in itself. Congress has the power to coin money in Art. 1 sec. 10 and it's specific as by what measure: Most people rarely ever read this part! OK, back to the point and this is where it gets real tricky. You say the federal gov't shouldn't be in all these other areas and that the States or local govt's should be the final decider of this and in fact IMO the organic constitution fully backs you up on what you say. However, those same powers in those areas reserves for the states also applied in a larger scale when it came to the use of military force at the federal level. It requires the Congress to declare war, in which the President as commander can authorize the governors to send forth the State and local militias for federal service. Outside that declaration, the President has no authority to call forth. In the spirit of checks and balance the governor acts as such outside the Congress having acted. But let's look at bit closer in Art. 1 Sec. 8 pertaining to the use of an army and the militias. Consider these for a moment. Under Sec. 8 the enumerated powers it sez: "The Congress shall have power, (and now some of those listed powers) [I]To raise and support armies,but no appropiation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;[/I] [I]To provide and maintain a navy;[/I] [I]To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;[/I] Well what can the President do? Art. 2 is quoted above and this is the extent of his Constitutional authority as it relates to his duties as commander. He must first be authorized by Congress with a war declaration and then and only then is he free to call forth the militias. As for a standing army, Congress can other authorize this according to sec. 8 powers to last no longer than 2 years or in other words, from my reading of the organic Constitution, there is no authority to maintain a standing army beyond 2 years and then that army is the State militia called into service. But there is authority for a navy because the Federal gov't has authority and jurisdiction over international affairs and as such a Navy is needed to regulate the high seas as those are international. But in the case of a standing army, from my reading that authority is very limited and mostly a function of the States. Now, going back to what you said earlier: When it comes to limited gov't, when it comes to the individual within the States how far are you willing to go in allowing them to escape the over reach of what IMO is unConstitutional authority? You seem willing in regards to SS, healthcare, education, etc. but are those just convienent choices based on political belief or agenda? Look I know what I'm suggesting is tough and goes against a whole lot of what we believe and what we have in the real world or at least been led to believe but if we make convience choices regarding the Constitution, then it does come down to the fact that we will be tossed too and fro with the political winds of passion and in time fall further and further into the political abyss. As for how we defend ourselves under these seemingly limited conditions in today's world? Consider the other Congressional authority within the same Sec 8 as teh power to declare war exists. In total it reads as follows: "Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal and makes rules of capture on land and water." The letter of Marque and reprisal IMO should have been the proper response to 9/11 and the following actions but the only person to raise such were Ron Paul [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20080409135228/http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm[/url] What is a letter of Marque? A rough idea if you like. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque#_note-3[/url] So you see, the founders understood that every situation doesn't always require a wholesale Declaration of War and had mechanisms in place for such smaller events below wholesale national invasion. Isn't odd the founders went so far to not have a standing army as this was seen in their day as the first step towards empire. Now we openly accept it as fact and no one challenges to politician who declares himself a follower of the Constitution and even so far as to say he will apppoint "originalists" buzz word for constitutionalist to the high court to further the cause of the limited gov't republic. Again AV, I don't pretend these are easy choices by any stretch, in fact they're very tough choices but we live in a system of precedense and the very one you set today, your political opposites will use tomorrow to set their own and the visious cycle goes on and on. Where and when do we stand up, take a firm stand even in the face of risk and choose a course for ourselves and not one used against us under the banner of noble collectivism. Just another POV to consider. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
Top