So it is written...

[Bullypulpit]

<b>"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."</b>

 

[jimnyc]

Thank you for a terrific argument for overthrowing Saddam and his regime.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Thank you for a terrific argument for overthrowing Saddam and his regime.

Then it was the responsibility of Iraqi citizens to do so...Not a foreign power.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Then it was the responsibility of Iraqi citizens to do so...Not a foreign power.

Agreed, but your logic of applying OUR Constitution talking abour OUR free people to a foreign nation as law is crazy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Then it was the responsibility of Iraqi citizens to do so...Not a foreign power.

Was it wrong then for the U.S. to stop Hitler? It's not our problem?

 

[007]

Or maybe America should still be a slave nation....

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Was it wrong then for the U.S. to stop Hitler? It's not our problem?

Hitler was a threat to the world, Saddam was a threat to no one but his own people. Apples and oranges boyo.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Agreed, but your logic of applying OUR Constitution talking abour OUR free people to a foreign nation as law is crazy.

You really didn't get it...Did you?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
You really didn't get it...Did you?

I did.

You missed it.

I counter you a million times and you don't get it.

I agree with you once and you STILL miss it.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Agreed, but your logic of applying OUR Constitution talking abour OUR free people to a foreign nation as law is crazy.

Right or for wrong, isn't that exactly what the US did?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Right or for wrong, isn't that exactly what the US did?

I am not naive enough to think the US did anything there for any specific reason.

I know this:

By founding documentation we are only to go to war in a situation of direct confrontation and through proclaimation of Congress.

Anything else is illegal.

The Constitution states clearly who holds the power for war.

I don't know the exact reason why we went in, but nothing I have seen so far squares with my understanding of LEGAL.

Call it what you wish.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I am not naive enough to think the US did anything there for any specific reason.

I know this:

By founding documentation we are only to go to war in a situation of direct ocnfrontation and through proclaimation of Congress.

Anything else is illegal.

The Constitution states clearly who holds the power for war.

I don't know the exact reason why we went in, but nothing I have seen so far squares with my understanding of LEGAL.

Call it what you wish.

Interesting, I did not know of that clause. Thanks.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Interesting, I did not know of that clause. Thanks.

Let me iron this out:

The Constitution does not say what I just said.

The Constitution gives statements of who holds power for war.

The idea of national soverignty and the natural god-given rights of all men are statements from the Declaration of Independence and such.

When you add these points up the fact of the matter is that we cannot hold these values and proactively invade a nation for any reason. Reading both documents will clearly illustrate that.

The Constitution has no clause stating anything such as "only direct confrontation leads to war".

In fact, it has no clauses.

It is a document of one free flowing idea with sub points to make the whole idea.

As such, it is a contextual statement of balance of power and governmental authority.

IT IS NOT some statement of bullet points.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Let me iron this out:

The Constitution does not say what I just said.

The Constitution gives statements of who holds power for war.

The idea of national soverignty and the natural god-given rights of all men are statements from the Declaration of Independence and such.

When you add these points up the fact of the matter is that we cannot hold these values and proactively invade a nation for any reason. Reading both documents will clearly illustrate that.

The Constitution has no clause stating anything such as "only direct confrontation leads to war".

In fact, it has no clauses.

It is a document of one free flowing idea with sub points to make the whole idea.

As such, it is a contextual statement of balance of power and governmental authority.

IT IS NOT some statement of bullet points.

So does that mean then that the constitution has no direction when it comes to the "why" of war and just concerns the "who" makes the choice?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
So does that mean then that the constitution has no direction when it comes to the "why" of war and just concerns the "who" makes the choice?

For the most part yes, but it also says more:

Article 1, section 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This is in terms of each state individually. The issue we are concerned with is the reasoning.

Note that each state must be invaded before it can take action.

-Or it must be directly threatened.

Why?

To maintain national integrity and power, of course. In other words, we must not be proactive, but reactive. If this were merely a statement of national security, there would be a conditional for congress to vote on the issue or something. Instead, we are looking at a philosophy behined the action as well.

Lets look at a bit more:

The Declaration of Independence was the acting Constitution until the final draft of one was created. The Articles of Confederation was going to be the one, but was later shelved. Still, that was well after our declaration.

This Declaration of Independence says:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Whose duty?

The issue is that the belief was one of national soverignty was the way of the world. No nation had authority over another and each was individual no matter what another wanted or percieved.

Example?

From the Declaration of Independence:

" In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

So to answer the question, no. The Constitution doesn't say the conditions war may be waged.

As I have stated, the conditions are dictated by the ethics and morals of our founders in how we claim men and nations free, and soverign. We cannot respect the ideal unless we act REACTIVELY instead of PROACTIVELY.