Has Bush Gone Mad?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No, he isn't.

As America, not as a poster. The US constitution is internal to the US, and only reaches to the 49th parallel.

[Imran Siddiqui]

whether Us executives in the future can expect the Legislature of this country to act simply as a rubber stamp for any military action overseas

What is new about this? It's happened since WW2. Congress really doesn't even give a damn about the President wanting to fight. It just says yes.

But not a power to "re-distribute" wealth.

Really?! So the 16th Amendment coupled with the Spending Clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1) doesn't allow for Congress to tax and then spend in whatever way it wishes? Please! Only someone with no knowledge of the Constitution would assert such a fallacy.

[Ben Kenobi]

And maybe Ozz can be our educated Fez?

I refuse to be anyone[']s headgear however literate.

LMAO

Ever hear of Giancarlo, Ozz?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by obiwan18 Ever hear of Giancarlo, Ozz?

No, I really am a settler

I assume you mean the legendary Fez, Boogey man of
the boards, troller exordinaire. I've seen passing references to him in some OT threads but I have never
seen a Fez post.

[David Floyd]

Berzerker,

C'mon you people, the ONLY reason we need to support ousting Saddam is the liberation of the people under his rule. I don't believe he's a threat to the US, and I do believe he may handout WMD to terrorists if we do invade, but he's ******* evil AND the US really screwed up by inviting the Iraqi people to rebel at the end of the last Gulf War only to let them get slaughtered. We owe those people, and to hell with the UN!

So you support forcing me to pay for this war? That's not very free.

The Nazis were evil too, but so was forcing Americans to fight them/pay to fight them.

If you believe we should go kick out Saddam, then go do it, but don't force me to pay for your personal beliefs. Same applies to my view of Hitler/WW2.

I agree Saddam's immoral, but committing immoral acts to fight immorality cannot be moral.

As to your argument about encouraging the Iraqi people to revolt, and then letting them get slaughtered - yes, that was wrong, but it still doesn't justify forcing me to take an action or pay for an action that I don't want to pay for.

Imran,

Really?! So the 16th Amendment coupled with the Spending Clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1) doesn't allow for Congress to tax and then spend in whatever way it wishes? Please! Only someone with no knowledge of the Constitution would assert such a fallacy.

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ozz:
I'm sure there are better quotes, I'll let the veterans of the board supply those. Until then, this will have to do.
(My bolding).

Why don't you Americans just elect somebody like Alvaro Uribe (President of Colombia)? The drug problem will disappear quickly. Because I know people, right-minded people, don't want to see stinking drugs on their streets.

Also you should instate Singaporean like laws. The basis of my entire belief system. Drug abuse is low there isn't it? Because for possession it is a life sentence (or was it death?) and for selling it is punishable by death. That is Singapore for you. One of the most developed and civilized countries in the world.

-Fez

http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71326

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


#1 Communism is a form of socialism. All communists are by default also socialists.

You could compare this to:
Every dog is an animal, but not every animal is a dog.
OR
Having one's cake and eating it, too.
OR
Keeping one's bases covered.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

Oh please Bezerker, why do you come up with such far fetched things?

Why not asked whether they would legalize cannablalistic necrophilia? At least that would be original?

You didn't answer my question because even though it won't happen, it still exposes the flaw with your argument.

The UN system can't legalize "slavery", or the drug trade, so forth and so on.

The members can, and then they can use the UN treaty to subvert the Constitution just as they are doing with declarations of war.

The Us argues that it already has authorization to attack Iraq under UNSCR 1441: it claism to already have the leagl means to do so.

UNSCR 1441 came after the congressional resolution. So why would we need this "legal means" to attack if Congress already authorised an attack?

And yes, the US has no legitimate standing as far as regime change goes (which is a different aim than disarmament), but then, of course, thats why the US gets a veto.

But other countries get a veto. If China, France and Russia veto our desire for regime change, the congressional declaration of war is in conflict with the UN treaty.

Remember Bezerker, the US was one of the writers of the charter and it created a system in which it can get away with things if it trully wants to.

We can always ignore the UN, but we'd be ignoring the treaty. Doesn't that create a conflict?

So, to repeat, persuant to the Constitution (article 4 or 5, I forget which is which), all treates ratified by the US senate become law in the US. The US ratified the treaty t join the UN, so on and so forth.

But not all laws are constitutional. The UN charter says we cannot seek an invasion and regime change in Iraq without UN approval. But what if Congress declares war on Iraq? You don't see a conflict between the UN treaty and the constitutional grant of war power to the Congress?

Ozz -

Sorry, but I don't believe the US can use it's constitution
to aborgate it's treatys with other nations as those treatys have been ratified by both houses.

The Senate ratifies treaties, not the House.

If the treaty is unconstitutional it could have never passed. if the US does this it makes all it's treaties worthless.

Since when is the Constitution a self-enforcing document? a treaty can be ratified without ever passing constitutional muster.

[Berzerker]

David -

So you support forcing me to pay for this war? That's not very free.

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...

The Nazis were evil too, but so was forcing Americans to fight them/pay to fight them.

We have a voluntary force.

If you believe we should go kick out Saddam, then go do it, but don't force me to pay for your personal beliefs. Same applies to my view of Hitler/WW2.

I would if the army will have me (and I mean it), but they won't because my knees are shot from playing sports.

I agree Saddam's immoral, but committing immoral acts to fight immorality cannot be moral.

True, but I'm not the one imposing this immorality on you. 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.

As to your argument about encouraging the Iraqi people to revolt, and then letting them get slaughtered - yes, that was wrong, but it still doesn't justify forcing me to take an action or pay for an action that I don't want to pay for.

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

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ozz -
The Senate ratifies treaties, not the House.

Since when is the Constitution a self-enforcing document? a treaty can be ratified without ever passing constitutional muster.

Read again, houses, ie: Congress and Senate.

Really? Every treaty has it's opponents in both houses
i suspect. I really don't think a unconstitutional treaty
could go through without being challenged by at least
one representitive on that basis.

Edit: spelling

[Ozz]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Ozz:
I'm sure there are better quotes, I'll let the veterans of the board supply those. Until then, this will have to do.

One's enough thanks, bit draconican but NOT uneducated like Imran Siddiqui makes
out.

Seems more like a troll to me.

[Kontiki]

For more of Fez's wonderous insights, check out my sig.

[Berzerker]

Ozz -

Read again, houses, ie: Congress and Senate.

Congress is the name for the 2 bodies - the House and the Senate. Only the Senate confirms treaties...

Really? Every treaty has it's opponents in both houses
i suspect. I really don't think a unconstitutional treaty
could go through without being challenged by at least
one representitive on that basis.

A representative has no legal standing to challenge treaties, only those "damaged" by the treaty. Besides, the Democrats and Republicans are so corrupt, James Madison couldn't get nominated, much less confirmed to the SCOTUS.

[Pekka]

Well, as much as I am anti-war person, we can't back down now. Bottom line if we back down, what happens? Saddam gets to be free and do what he wants. Even if he didn't directly attack the US, which I think he wouldn't dare to do (or be able to do), it would send a clear message to the world that it's ok to stand up against the good guys, it's ok to keep hiding wmds, it's cool to develop them and it makes you sexy. So, what happens in Iraq? Nothing changes, Saddam makes development of weapons even faster and more massive, since he now wants to prepare better for the future and have some kind of strong deterrent against new threats.

So what you might say.. well after he's gone, his son will take place and God knows how screwed up he is. The power stays in the hands of mad men. They will only get stronger, and they learn more how to play the game. It also sends a clear message to OTHER countries planning the same, and terrorist groups. It will be seen as act of God and great victory in the eyes of Islam fundamentalists, but it won't make them more friendly.. it makes them more confident that their chosen path is the right one. These people will only get stronger until they're fought back to stone age, or destroyed. Bottom line, backing down will not only save some lives if Iraqi citizens, it might even kill more of them. You guys think this will make him love Kurds, or perhaps make him less paranoid? At the end, results could be far worse than it would be if we strike NOW. They will only give birth to another generation of hatred against western world and the US. It won't stop, until the US backs down and retrieves from the world and becomes isolated, or some of these rogue countries leaders are changed and forced to submit. Sooner or later it WILL happen. Question is how strong we let Iraq and other nasty countries to become, and who strikes first. I don't think its paranoia, I think it's pretty safe bet to say that some day it will happen, in our time anyway. But now we would win pretty easily, after 20 years? Saddams son is going to be better leader? No way. Change needs to be done now, it will cost less.

But, as for the topic, I think it's important to get UNs backing, every effort made to make it happen. Damn it, if there is no support, then go for the damn duel.

[SlowwHand]

Hmmm.

Maybe Bush has gone Mad after all.