Anti-Christian attitudes in the U.S.? Would Jesus use this much electricity?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


A national guard would have helped the US when it was confronting Hitler's aggression? Would it have helped the US with the vicious Soviet Union around? Would it have helped with terrorists around? No. It would not of been enough. A standing army is a necessity and only braindead liberals think about disbanding it. That is not only illogical, it is downright idiotic. There is plenty of money for the people and the military in the US.

Actually it did. The National Guard provided a large portion of the initial troops deployed to the European and Pacific theaters during WW2. You don't hear about them because the units were blended into larger regimental and divisional formations. As an example, the local National Guard infantry company of Bedford, Virginia was assigned to one of the divisions landing at Normandy. Though assigned to a regular army division the unit stayed intact. During the landing at Normandy their landing craft was hit by an artillery shell, virtually wipring out the whole unit. Two high school classes (the males thereof) were virtually eradicated.

[Berzerker]

Ned -

the very definition of conservative is follow the constitution, law and precedent strictly.

Where in the Constitution did you find the authority for Social Security, the drug war, the welfare state, the FDA, etc? If conservatives support the Constitution, I can think of only 1 in Congress and he's a libertarian from Texas.

Imran -

I'd say he did. As rich as he may be, he's nothing compared to the national mainstream media. He didn't have enough cash and influence to keep his medical records private.

Obviously he wasn't expecting to be busted and for bureaucrats to raid his records, but the notion that Limbaugh needed the ACLU when he has the backing of the GOP is far-fetched, or that the ACLU countered the big bad media. It's been Republicans on all these talking head shows that have been blasting away at the Florida prosecutors and portraying Limbaugh as a poor soul who became addicted because of back pain while they portray the rest of us who are addicted as bad people who need to be punished.

And privacy issues are something that no other organization really covers. The NRA is more than able to deal with any 2nd Amendment threats, whether big or small.

Limbaugh has attorneys, and the GOP is very good at defending the privacy of its stars when they're busted.
The NRA is not able to defend the 2nd Amendment, it needs the ACLU's help. But the ACLU does not support the 2nd Amendment, so it "focuses" on other amendments it does support.

Gian =

I don't think he is right at all. There is nothing wrong with having a peace-time military. It is always good for defense. It would be wrong and highly irresponsible to disband it because one commie thinks it is wrong to have one.

You say chegitz is wrong but you said nothing to refute him. Your opinion about what is good or irresponsible is irrelevant. The Framers were very nervous about standing armies and that's why the Constitution says Congress can maintain a navy but only raise armies. If you already have a standing army you don't need to raise one.

Kuci -

Congress has the right to raise an army. The Constitution doesn't say for how long, except to note that Congress must renew appropriations for the army every two years.

Yes, they tied military appropriations to the term of Congress so that the people would get an election to express their support for or resistance to a war. But if Congress has the power to declare war, and the power to raise armies for those wars, how does that translate into maintaining armies during peacetime?

You say that since the Constitution doesn't say Congress can't maintain an army, Congress has that power. That turns the Constitution on its head, it is a grant of powers, not a blank check to do whatever is not found in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment makes that abundantly clear - those powers not given to Congress are reserved to the states (unless prohibited by the Constitution).

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you think money actually came out of the RNC or the Party for Limbaugh, you are nuts. The talking heads came out to back Limbaugh to get air time. It is unlikely that they really gave anything for Limbaugh's defense. From everything that has happened, I think the ACLU was justified in going in there to protect Limbaugh's rights.

Aside from the fact that his rights may be violated, it also is a high profile case of a right winger. The ACLU coming to his aid is just great PR irregardless of his monetary status.

Also, I'd say the NRA is more than able to defend the 2nd Amendment. They've done a bang up job. The amendment says the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that there cannot be a registration system (that doesn't infringe on the right), but the NRA has prevented that from being even close to a reality.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Where in the Constitution did you find the authority for Social Security, the drug war, the welfare state, the FDA, etc?

Social Security & the Welfare State:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

The FDA:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."


And tying everything together...

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

[Berzerker]

Imran -

If you think money actually came out of the RNC or the Party for Limbaugh, you are nuts.

He doesn't need their money, he's rich. But he has their support and they're in control. The GOP and right wing entertainment are supporting Limbaugh, he doesn't need no stinkin ACLU. But do tell what exactly the ACLU has done for Rush he and allies couldn't do.

The talking heads came out to back Limbaugh to get air time. It is unlikely that they really gave anything for Limbaugh's defense. From everything that has happened, I think the ACLU was justified in going in there to protect Limbaugh's rights.

Why do you put yourself in the position of defending the indefensible? It doesn't matter if the ACLU was justified, but whether or not Limbaugh needed them. You said he needed the ACLU. And what's this about "airtime"?

Aside from the fact that his rights may be violated, it also is a high profile case of a right winger. The ACLU coming to his aid is just great PR irregardless of his monetary status.

Yes, PR, not because Rush needed them.

Also, I'd say the NRA is more than able to defend the 2nd Amendment. They've done a bang up job. The amendment says the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that there cannot be a registration system (that doesn't infringe on the right), but the NRA has prevented that from being even close to a reality.

How many gun laws do we have, Imran? Brady, assault guns? Congress has been making it more difficult for Americans to have effective weapons under the guise we don't need them for hunting, but that ain't why the Framers wanted an armed population. They wanted us to be able to match and overcome the firepower of invaders and despots at home.

Odin -

Social Security & the Welfare State:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Where did the Framers say "general welfare" means Social Security or Welfare (aside from how the slimy Democrats hijacked the word from the Constitution to sell their fraud)? I suggest you read what Madison said about the "general welfare" in Federalist #41 before trying to pass it off as a catch-all for every socialist program we've come up with over the last 70 years.

Or better yet, answer a simple question: if Congress has the power to pay for the common defense and general welfare, why does the Constitution authorise Congress to maintain a navy or postal system? Aren't these already covered? Your reading of this clause makes the enumerated powers following it redundant.

The FDA:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

Would you like to explain how the FDA can enforce a ban on pot when it can be grown and used for free without ever crossing a state or national border?

And tying everything together...

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

So Congress has the power to make laws to facilitate enforcement of powers granted by the Constitution. But according to you, the common defense and general welfare cover just about everything making the enumeration of powers redundant and illogical. Why did the Framers author such an illogical and redundant document? They didn't, what is illogical is your interpretation...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ned -

Where in the Constitution did you find the authority for Social Security, the drug war, the welfare state, the FDA, etc?

"Article I, Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, ..., to provide for the ...general Welfare of the United States...."

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Actually it did. The National Guard provided a large portion of the initial troops deployed to the European and Pacific theaters during WW2. You don't hear about them because the units were blended into larger regimental and divisional formations. As an example, the local National Guard infantry company of Bedford, Virginia was assigned to one of the divisions landing at Normandy. Though assigned to a regular army division the unit stayed intact. During the landing at Normandy their landing craft was hit by an artillery shell, virtually wipring out the whole unit. Two high school classes (the males thereof) were virtually eradicated.

But still you are ignoring the fact it was the Army that provided a lot of the support. A standing Army was what saved us in WWII. I'm not saying the National Guard didn't do anything... but where would we go if we didn't have an army during WWII? A national guard did contribute, but it wouldn't of been enough on its own.

MRT, 9/11 shows how isolationism is utter bull****. There is plenty of money. Your views should be abandoned.

[Mr. Harley]

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/introduction.aspx

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWusaA.htm

The standing army at the start of WW2 was 187,893 men, and the National Guard 199,491. At the end the US Army had employed 10,420,000 throughout the war. A system of National Guard more akin to what we have now would serve very nicely, as it is not weekend warriors but a thoroughly professional militia. They are not ready for instant deployment in many cases, but with a series of changes and with them receiving a larger budget, more training, etc. that could easily be changed.

However, a standing army lets the Commander-in-Chief initiate hostilities without a formal declaration of war. This is entirely in contravention of what the framers of the constitution intended. This trend has been going on for a very long time, and has reached a very sad point where both parties cravenly IMHO avoid their constitutional duties while letting an Imperial Executive develop.

However, while I agree with the historical analysis Berzerker presents, it's moot. Five justices on SCOTUS determine what is constitutional, whatever else can be argued. The appointment of those individuals is very important, and as I've stated Gonzales is frightening. Read the terror memos. Berzerker, I respect your staying true to the Libetarian ideals. Many Libetarians are simply anti-tax, and could give a rat's butt about the rest of the platform. You realize how big a threat this administration, and the neocon movement, is. Kudoes.

Ned, two points. First, language creep. You and I are talking apples and oranges, and you are attempting to co-opt certain terms under the blanket of conservative. As in strict constructioniost. Both Stevens and Scalia indefinite detention case had a strict constructionist interpretation, as in charge the individual, maybe with treason, or release them.

Saying all strict constructionists are conservatives will not make it so, and neither will claiming any real conservative will be a strict constructionist. Berzerker's postings say it all for me in exhaustive detail. Trying to coopt the FDA into preventing intrastate sales of marijuana hardly is strict constructionist. That has been pushed heavily by this administration, which I would hardly consider liberal.

Point two. If a member of the Clinton adminsitration had written such a memo you would be all over them. Apply consistancy. Gonzales could resign any time he felt uncomfortable with what his client was doing. Remember, he was not Bush's private secretary, he was the counsel for the White House. Which leaves us with two unpalatable choices.

He may be a whore, selling his principles for power and access. Note if he, or any lawyer, feels his client is attempting to circumvent the law, it is not his duty to help him do so. His duty is to advise his client as to the law, warn him that he may indeed to breaking it, and if necessary resign from the case (or position) if he feels his client is going to try to break the law.

Even worse is that Gonzales may truly have seen nothing wrong with this, in which case he is as profound a danger as Ashcroft was. If you look at his record in Texas, he is reactionary, activist, and conservative. I certainly don't want him on SCOTUS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q]You said he needed the ACLU. And what's this about "airtime"?[/q

Yeah, he did. You'll note they were on the front lines in this. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they have all the resources they need to battle such a draining suit all across the country (if need be). Lawyers are pretty damned expensive, as O.J. found out. "Airtime" refers to the GOP talking heads. All they did was just say what should happen on FOXNews and such places. They didn't give Rush the cash or legal support he may need.

How many gun laws do we have, Imran?

Pitifully small. Especially when you compare it to any other good which is made in the US. Compare, say, regulations on cars with those on guns. I can guarentee you that cars are more highly regulated, by a LOT.

[Last Conformist]

Jesus says, give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Hand back all those classicizing pillars to Italy NOW!