Has Bush Gone Mad?

[David Floyd]

There's nothing I can do about other people forcing you to pay for the military regardless of peace or war. I don't vote for Democans...

Right, but war costs more than peace. Supporting war means supporting increased costs, which, in the end, will come back to me. Especially in a war like this, which will really hit the economy.

We have a voluntary force.

Yes, but I'm not voluntarily paying for it.

Besides, you'll have to convince me forced taxation for the military is immoral, it can reasonably be viewed as a user fee just like a gas tax for highway maintenance.

Ah, but why should a user-fee funded organization be used to benefit someone other than the user? Going to war and deposing Saddam does not benefit me, and it could easily be argued that it harms me, through both increasing theft of my property and contributing to a more dangerous environment for terrorism, and the like.

If our military was a purely defensive one, that operating ONLY inside the borders of the US, you could possibly make a user fee argument. However, I still probably would not buy it because a large standing military could easily be dispensed with in favor of a non-belligerent foreign policy.

To extend your example of roads, it is sort of like taxing me to build a road in Iraq - sure, you might say taxing me for a road in the US is OK because it is a user fee, and I'll be using the road, but I certainly won't be using the road in Iraq.

I'm not forcing you, other people have done that.

Sure, but by supporting war, you are by extension supporting the coercion of others.

[SlowwHand]

David, why in Hell would you want the military operating on our soil?
Have you no conception what that means?

Damn it. That's the kind of statement by you that drives me to utter distraction.
Think!

[David Floyd]

David, why in Hell would you want the military operating on our soil?
Have you no conception what that means?

I don't want the military operating, period, except in the case of an invasion in which case the military would be operating on US soil.

[SlowwHand]

I'll ask a favor of you.
Go read posts by, for instance, Sirotnikov or Eli.
Then come back, and repeat your statement.

You think I stay on your ass, just to stay on your ass.
That's ridiculous.

You say you want the military operating on our soil, I'm telling you, you most certainly do not.

You'll probably just turn around and flame my ass, but that's cool.
I have broad shoulders. I can handle it.
Just look, and think.

[David Floyd]

You say you want the military operating on our soil, I'm telling you, you most certainly do not.

No ****, but the ONLY circumstance in which I want the military operating is during a direct attack on the US - this means an invasion or something similar.

[SlowwHand]

That last post, makes zero sense, David.
Zip. Zilch. Notta.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But, as has been pointed out to you before, this renders the enumerated powers superfluous. If the Founders intended the federal government to do whatever it wanted for the "general welfare", then that would have been the only enumerated power necessary, and it would have been a power on its own, not one combined with defense.

Take it up with the Supreme Court, which is the body that determines constitutionality. I won't promise that they won't laugh in your face when you come to them though.

2ndly, as much as you like twisting my words around, can you show me where I said Congress can DO anything? I said Congress can SPEND in anyway it wishes. That is totally different. Nice try though.

--

Berz has to come back... we need to see a Libertarian fight .

[David Floyd]

That last post, makes zero sense, David.

What it means is that I never, ever want the military to attack anyone. It's only purpose should be defense from invasion.

Imran,

Take it up with the Supreme Court, which is the body that determines constitutionality. I won't promise that they won't laugh in your face when you come to them though.

SCOTUS has made some pretty horrible decisions before, nothing is stopping them from doing so again.

2ndly, as much as you like twisting my words around, can you show me where I said Congress can DO anything? I said Congress can SPEND in anyway it wishes. That is totally different.

Yes, different in the way ordering someone to commit murder and committing murder yourself are different - the end result is the same.

[Ramo]

David can you clean out your pm's?

[HershOstropoler]

Berzerker:

"Ah yes, those without rebuttals claim rebuttals are not needed."

I'd have a field day with you on this issue, but if someone starts propagating the earth is flat, I can't be arsed to discuss it in detail either.

"A treaty cannot limit Congress' power to declare war without granting some foreign entity a veto of that power"

Of course it can. It is intrinsic of international treaties to limit what a state can do.

"You seem to think no treaty can violate the Constitution"

Of course it can.

"what about a treaty allowing a foreign country to export slaves to the US for sale to Americans? Wouldn't the 1808 prohibition on slave importation and the 13th Amendment, i.e., the Constitution, forbid such a treaty?"

It would be unconstitutional, the courts would have to refuse applying it, but its validity can only be judged by international law (which would render it absolutely void as a violation of ius cogens).

What you claim, however, is that every power enumerated in the constitution cannot be subject to limitation by an international treaty, which is simply bollocks.

"You didn't ask, you concluded"

You are free to "understand" what you want.

"Yeah, useless because it refuted your claim that there was a %99 likelyhood of chaos"

Refuted?
You have a serious problem with logic.

[David Floyd]

Ramo - done and done!

[Berzerker]

David - Is coercion to fund a military allowable? Is that a user fee based on the reality that the military benefits us all? I'd prefer seeing if the miltary can be funded voluntarily, but I wouldn't complain if the funding was coerced because I view that tax as a user fee. User fees should be directed to the primary users, whenever possible, because certain services benefit some people more than others - like a gas or auto tax to hit the people who use the roads more, but we all benefit from roads even if we don't drive. And those paying the tax end up transfering some of the cost to people who don't use the roads via the marketplace and the cost of living. But the military benefits us all "equally", so a general tax to support the military is IMO allowable.

So the question becomes whether or not action in Iraq is valid. The military is voluntary, so that's not a problem. Will action benefit us? I believe it will by eliminating a potential, if not actual, base for terrorists. And by sending a message to other countries that allowing terrorists to operate within, and with the blessings of those countries, comes at a heavy price, we will reduce the operating abilities of terrorists.

Now, you and I know we wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for the fact that the Democrats and Republicans think the world is their playground and seemingly have no problem creating enemies abroad. You and I know this would not have happened if libertarians were running foreign policy. But we are stuck with what the Democans have created, so what is the best option given this reality? I still believe that if we just left the region, lifted the sanctions on Iraq, and withdrew from entangling alliances (Israel), the attacks would cease. So ideally this is what I would want, but the Democans won't do what I think is best for Americans. The next best option is war, just getting it over with, and that is one of two feasible options the Congress is supporting. Besides, as I said before, we owe the Iraqi people for Bush's backstab, that's what tips the balance for me...Btw, there are many roads you will never use here too.

[aaglo]

Re: Has Bush Gone Mad?



Was he ever sane?

[Berzerker]

Hersh -

I'd have a field day with you on this issue, but if someone starts propagating the earth is flat, I can't be arsed to discuss it in detail either.

Not without first offering a rebuttal. Btw, that wasn't a rebuttal either.

Of course it can. It is intrinsic of international treaties to limit what a state can do.

Isn't that what I just said? I'll repeat myself, a treaty cannot limit Congress' power to declare war without granting some foreign entity a partial veto of that power. Now, are you suggesting a treaty can limit Congress' power to declare war without granting a foreign entity veto power? And if this foreign entity has, via treaty, a veto power over the Congress, then Congress no longer has the power to declare war. That means the treaty is in violation of the Constitution. We the people did not grant foreign entities veto power over the congressional power to declare war nor did we the people authorise Congress to give foreign entities veto power over Congress' power to declare war. The Constitution says the President has the power to nominate judges and the Senate has the power to confirm or reject those nominees. If a treaty gave a foreign country the power to confirm or reject judges nominated and confirmed by the President and Senate, wouldn't that violate the Constitution?

It would be unconstitutional, the courts would have to refuse applying it, but its validity can only be judged by international law (which would render it absolutely void as a violation of ius cogens).

So a treaty can violate the Constitution? Earlier you said this:

international treaties can limit the exercise of that power without being in conflict with the constitution

But now you say a treaty can violate the Constitution? Isn't that what I've being saying? So, the question becomes whether or not giving the UN veto power over congressional declarations of war violate the Constitution. And it does for the reason I've stated.

What you claim, however, is that every power enumerated in the constitution cannot be subject to limitation by an international treaty, which is simply bollocks.

I didn't say that, I said the power to declare war resides with Congress and no treaty can give a foreign entity veto power.

Refuted? You have a serious problem with logic.

Let's see, you claim there is a %99 chance regime change in Iraq will result in chaos and then added a somewhat incomprehensible comment about Chile. I cited 2 examples of regime change that did not result in this chaos you predict. Wouldn't that mean, if you are basing your prediction on history and not pie-in-the-sky speculations, that the US has brought about regime changes that resulted in chaos 198 times with only 2 regime changes that did not?

[HershOstropoler]

I know this is like talking to a wall, but well...

"Isn't that what I just said? I'll repeat myself, a treaty cannot limit Congress' power to declare war without granting some foreign entity a partial veto of that power."

A strict limitation would not require a veto power. All depends on how the threaty is structured.

"And if this foreign entity has, via treaty, a veto power over the Congress, then Congress no longer has the power to declare war. That means the treaty is in violation of the Constitution."

It has the power, it just cannot exercise it at will. That is at the heart of classic international treaties.

"If a treaty gave a foreign country the power to confirm or reject judges nominated and confirmed by the President and Senate, wouldn't that violate the Constitution?"

Art II says the president shall nominate etc. The procedure is already prescribed by the constitution, adding another party to formally confirm would be unconstitutional. A limitation by treaty could be not to appoint an in internationally sought war criminal as judge. That would not conflict with Art II, the procedure would not be affected, only its outcome.

"But now you say a treaty can violate the Constitution?"

I said as you quote:

"international treaties can limit the exercise of that power without being in conflict with the constitution"

Don't know how to translate this. Maybe "international treaties can limit the exercise of that power without being necessarily, automatically, without further consideration in conflict with the constitution"

"I didn't say that, I said the power to declare war resides with Congress and no treaty can give a foreign entity veto power."

The power to make laws for theD.C. resides with Congress, exclusively. Does that mean an international treaty about say consular protection, or free trade, cannot include DC without being unconstitutional?

"Wouldn't that mean, if you are basing your prediction on history and not pie-in-the-sky speculations, that the US has brought about regime changes that resulted in chaos 198 times with only 2 regime changes that did not?"

And I did not say 99 % of all tried regime changes end that way, I said Iraq would end that way. If you were relying on history, you could identify some crucial differences between Iraq vs germany or japan. What you try is refuting the shape of apples by pointing out the shape of bananas.