Has Bush Gone Mad?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ozz
You made an international agreement then spout a lot of lawyer doublespeak to renige. Your the only one who
cares about the US constitution

Worthless? Right?

Care to rephrase?

[Sprayber]

Am I the only one that has trouble figureing out where Ozz is comming from half the time?

[chequita guevara]

No. I honestly don't know what he said.

[Berzerker]

Hersh -

Well it's not really worth a rebuttal. I'm not going into a monism/pluralism debate now.

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

And congress has the power to make laws - treaties can limit the exercise that power. That's at the heart of international treaties, as adopted by Art VI. Same with declaring war, international treaties can limit the exercise of that power without being in conflict with the constitution. Under your interpretation, there would be hardly any treaty left that could be made.

Right, Congress declares war and the President with the duty to carry out the congressional declaration of war tells Congress he cannot fulfill his duties because the UN has to tell him it's okay first. A treaty cannot limit Congress' power to declare war without granting some foreign entity a veto of that power, a veto power the Framers did not even give the President. Your argument is that Congress no longer has the power to declare war because a treaty shifted that power to a foreign body. You seem to think no treaty can violate the Constitution, 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? Btw, this has nothing to do with other treaties so claiming it would nullify most if not all other treaties is fallacious.

Proof? An assumption, hence I asked.

You didn't ask, you concluded, for some bizarre reason, that I opposed "Bush's war". Whether or not your conclusion was in the form of a "question" matters only to you and Alex Trebek.

Useless analogy.

Just two examples of regime change that didn't cause chaos in either the short, or long term. Yeah, useless because it refuted your claim that there was a %99 likelyhood of chaos, or another dictator, replacing the supposed stability of the current situation.

Ozz -

You gave that up when you joined the UN which must have passed congress , or is this just a fancy lawyer way of saying your treaties are worthless?

Treaties are worthless when they violate the Constitution. Congress is a product of powers "we the people" gave it, and those powers are found in a contract called the Constitution. What if a treaty abolished the House of Representatives? I'm not sure why this is so perplexing to some people here.

chegitz -

#2 The constitution of the united states does not endorse socialism, but neither does it prohibit it. The closest it comes to taking a stand between the two economic systems are its provisions that the government shall protect private property or give just compenesation.

Socialists respect private property? Of course the Constitution prohibits socialism, otherwise it would have granted Congress the power to "re-distribute" private property, not protect it.

Dinodoc -

I'm somewhat shocked to see Berz support a war.

Only because of what happened the last time in Iraq and only because I'm stuck in a situation created by the Democans. If I had my way, we'd leave the region completely, lift the sanctions, and possibly have a nice reward waiting for whomever offed Saddam. But the Democans are intent on being involved one way or another, so might as well get it over with.

[Imran Siddiqui]

treaties themselves are the second highest law in the land.

Yes, they are equal with the laws that Congress passes. The SCOTUS has affirmed this view of treaties. A treaty can change a law and a law can change a treaty because both are equal.

Anyway, the UN charter is in no conflict with the US constitution.

Absolutely correct. Anyone that says otherwise is really losing it.

--

And maybe Ozz can be our educated Fez?

--

Oh, I used to sit on the fence, but I think more and more I'm pro-war. Though I see nothing wrong with keeping a bunch of troops in Kuwait to 'make' Saddam allow inspectors in and follow UN mandates. Kind of like a Sword of Damocles hanging over his head.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
chegitz -

Socialists respect private property? Of course the Constitution prohibits socialism, otherwise it would have granted Congress the power to "re-distribute" private property, not protect it.

The 14th Amendment states that the government (state and federal) shall not deprive people of their property except by due process of law, which means it can still be done. The Constitution also grants both levels of goverment the power to tax and create duties and tariffs.

[GePap]

The only constitutional debate to be had on the IUraq issue is whether the Congress of the United Satets has failed in its role as a counterbalance to the power of the Executive, or 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, instead of being, as the Constitution speaks, the one body with the power to decide war or peace.

The US signed the Charter of the UN (which we helped write) and the Senate ratifid it. Under the Constitution, that means that what the UN Charter makes law is also law in the US. Since the US has the power to block anyting in the UN, nothing in the UN charter conflicts with the Constitution of the US.

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

The 14th Amendment states that the government (state and federal) shall not deprive people of their property except by due process of law, which means it can still be done.

The 5th Amendment says that too, but due process is about trials, compensation, and fines etc for crimes, not the 're-distribution" of wealth.

The Constitution also grants both levels of goverment the power to tax and create duties and tariffs.

But not a power to "re-distribute" wealth. Taxing power is to pay for government functions, not buy votes with other people's money.

Gepap -

Under the Constitution, that means that what the UN Charter makes law is also law in the US.

What if the UN legalised slavery?

Since the US has the power to block anyting in the UN, nothing in the UN charter conflicts with the Constitution of the US.

Not true, under the UN, the US needs UN approval for regime change in Iraq. We can block what we don't like, but that doesn't mean we can declare war and change regimes without UN approval because other countries can block us.

[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?

The UN system can't legalize "slavery", or the drug trade, so forth and so on. It is a structural issue, and I will not waste my time going into the minute details and legal theory behind it. Be sufficed to know that this "possibility" is not an option.

As for part two (I really hate those line by line things):

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. 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. 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.

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.

[DuncanK]

"A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that 57 percent of Americans did not think the United States should go to war without a new resolution by the U.N. Security Council."

I read this in an opinion piece. Does anyone know if this is correct?

[Lord Merciless]

I think Thomas Friedman from New York Times summed it pretty nicely: "An Iraq war could have enormous benefit for the US IF it's done right, but Bush Administration can't do it right.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by DuncanK
"A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that 57 percent of Americans did not think the United States should go to war without a new resolution by the U.N. Security Council."

I read this in an opinion piece. Does anyone know if this is correct?

That is correct. Here's the link to the Pew site with the survey results:

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=173

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Am I the only one that has trouble figureing out where Ozz is comming from half the time?

Yes, you are "special"

[Ozz]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No. I honestly don't know what he said.

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

Otherwise, while the US is a member of the UN it is
bound by the UNs laws and the US constitution can't
be used as an excuse to bail out.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui And maybe Ozz can be our educated Fez?

I refuse to be anyones headgear however literate.

[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/showt...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]

Maybe Bush has gone Mad after all.