Draft Dodgers: Traitors?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Dr Spin


And how would you propose to decide that without a judge? We've DEFINED constitutionality based on whatever the judges are saying right now. Otherwise what's your source? Stone tablets?



I can come up with almost anything. It won't be factual though.

Of course, I was being a wise-ass. But you knew that.

Spin...the service records don't list people's "family socioeconomic background". But a proper academic study was done of all the casualties using zip code of home of record (zip codes have "socioeconomic ratings" from census data on income levels.) That is your best source of hard analysis. I quoted the major findings earlier. Look back and you'll see it. If you want more you'll have to pull the survey. (You know how I love good published peer review science...head on down to the library...I think you still owe me a few articles! )

Anyway, not sure if you read my earlier congrats for becoming an Intel weenie. Congrats.

[David Floyd]

Stop being unnecessarily obtuse. You are entirely missing the point, which is a law is Constitutional or unconstitutional on the basis of the law itself, not on the basis of what a judge says - sure, the judge is the arbiter of the Constitutionality, but judges make mistakes, and there is only one correct interpretation of the Constitution.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Nah - I was just idly trolling. In the end I just wanted to see how many times you and Sloww would reply

I'm glad the thread has now moved on to other subjects.

But thanks to both of you for the stats - I found them interesting.

I kinda clewed into that thing as I was typing the last post. Read Stolen Valor. Well worth your time. Should be able to get it at a large library...if the kangaroos haven't eaten all the books.

[Alexander's Horse]

The guy sounds like some sort of kook - which again casts doubt upon your stats.

*runs*

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd
How was it right for the US to attack German U-Boats, ship war materials to Britain and Russia, or escort British convoys into war zones?

I never said Germany was RIGHT to declare war on the US, only that they had a reason to, that the US lacked.

"legitimate causus belli"

So was Germany right to do so or not?

And we DIDN'T DECLARE WAR ON THEM UNTIL THEY DID ON US.

[Dr Spin]

Anyway, not sure if you read my earlier congrats for becoming an Intel weenie. Congrats.

Thanks. They decided I was too old to go back SW. Intel was my last choice... I almost would have preferred CE.

but judges make mistakes, and there is only one correct interpretation of the Constitution.

And whose might that be? Yours? Jesus'?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The guy sounds like some sort of kook - which again casts doubt upon your stats.

*runs*

Yeah...you have to be to write that kind of book. It's not a screed. It's packed with footnotes. You can go back to source documents.

[David Floyd]

Dr, not necessarily mine, although I think I have it more nearly nailed than most others. Personal opinion though, so don't flame me for it.

GP, Germany was wrong to declare war in that it was strategically stupid, and the situation should have been resolved through negotiation, although I do not find it morally reprehensible for them to declare war on a nation which was basically attacking them without declaring war.

And of course they declared war first - Congress and the American people didn't WANT war with Germany. So to get around the Constitution FDR simply ordered the Navy to escort Allied convoys and sink German U-Boats, and allowed war materials to be shipped to a belligerent nation without trading equally with all nations.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Dr Spin

I can come up with almost anything. It won't be factual though.

Of course, I was being a wise-ass. But you knew that.

Well...the examples would be factual. They'd just be examples. Not a multivariable regression.

I knew you were being a wise ass. Still got the sailboat?

[Dr Spin]

And we DIDN'T DECLARE WAR ON THEM UNTIL THEY DID ON US.

He has a point. There may not have been a formal declaration, but we were certainly funding and equipping their enemies. That's an act of war if ever there was one.

I think you still owe me a few articles!

You're probably right. Now I have access to the e-print server

Bring it on!

[Dr Spin]

Still got the sailboat?

Ya. I refuse to close her for the winter. Yesterday was in the 60's. Come up to New York sometime, I'll take you around the south shore of LI.

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Dr, not necessarily mine, although I think I have it more nearly nailed than most others. Personal opinion though, so don't flame me for it.

GP, Germany was wrong to declare war in that it was strategically stupid, and the situation should have been resolved through negotiation, although I do not find it morally reprehensible for them to declare war on a nation which was basically attacking them without declaring war.

And of course they declared war first - Congress and the American people didn't WANT war with Germany. So to get around the Constitution FDR simply ordered the Navy to escort Allied convoys and sink German U-Boats, and allowed war materials to be shipped to a belligerent nation without trading equally with all nations.

Dave-O.

Germany started the whole shebang off by invading her neighbors. That's what Libertarian Dave would say were he lilving in Germany. He wouldn't consider those US actions to be grounds for attacking the US, since Hitler had started a war against his neighbors.

Also wrt to just one part of your examples. Failure to trade with a nation or a decision of who to trade with is not a cause for war. the true libertarian believes in unilateral free trade. (I.e. I have no import/export restrictions regardless of what other countries do. Read Milton Freedman's Free to Choose for a discussion of this.) So somebody trading with my war neighbor is not a grounds for war. Just as Japan trading only with Dutch was not a legitimate casue for Perry to open Japan.

[Dr Spin]

Dr, not necessarily mine, although I think I have it more nearly nailed than most others. Personal opinion though, so don't flame me for it.

Not trying to 'flame', I'm legitimately curious. Why do you think there is some etherial 'correct' interpretation out there?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Dr Spin

You're probably right. Now I have access to the e-print server

Bring it on!

I think I just asked you for citations a few years ago. I was ready to go look em up myself in Phys rev or whatever. But of course more recently actual articles would be a lot easier...

Anyway...I don't need 'em. Just trying to get one up on a super braniac physicist.

[David Floyd]

GP, we aren't talking about Germany vs. Poland, or France, or Britain, or Russia - those are irrelevant to the point. They had nothing to do with war between Germany and the US. War between Germany and Britain did not, and should not have, automatically involved the US or made Germany culpable for war with the US. That is preposterous.

And regarding trade, Lend-Lease had nothing to do with trade. Everyone involved knew damn well it was the US giving tanks, planes, materials, etc., to Russia and Britain. It was simply the US being the "Arsenal for Democracy" and finding a way to wage war when Congress and the American people didn't want to declare war.