IWGF

iTrader: (6)

Wall to wall counseling may unscramble his brain... But doubtful.

hodge9386

iTrader: (5)

Thank you Sam and everybody else, its nice to actually hear it sometimes, it lets us know that were still fighting for something. as an active duty marine i can tell you that most of us dont fight for our government, we fight for the people, our friends and family and everyone we care about. And on to liberty thank you for wasting my time by reading all your stupid ******* rants and pissing all the people that fight to protect you off, but you know what your welcome anyway and **** you.

libertyforall1776

iTrader: (2)

A treaty that is in direct conflict with the Constitution is unconstitutional -- wether or not someone has yet to take the case to the Supreme Court, and even then bad rulings do come down...

You conveniently ignored this part: "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing."

There is no power to enter into a treaty which conflicts with, violates or does that which is not already a delegated power enumerated in the Constitution.

libertyforall1776

iTrader: (2)

I said the UN that was founded by Communists -- I did not say NATO.

libertyforall1776

iTrader: (2)

Nader? He has never been someone I supported -- occasionally he says some intelligent things, but he is a socialist -- I am not.

We are already forced to donate salary via taxes for undeclared, unconstitutional offensive wars, and if that would stop, the nations debt would not grow so much. If like you say that "no war we ever fought been for American interest", then we should not have been involved in the first place.

Note:
"No State shall... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

The original intent is pretty clear -- you just have to learn about it...

Travis Johnson

iTrader: (2)

The Constitution is using "State" to refer to the individual states, not the federal government. Section 10 of Article 1 that you quoted limits the powers of the individual states, so they don't print their own money, make their own treaties with foreign nations, etc. So Rhode Island can't engage in its own war. The federal government can, through Congress without limit for cause, according to the War Powers Clause Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11.

Neither Iraq or Afghanistan have been officially declared as war, but both were approved by Congress:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists S.J. Res. 23 2001
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution H.J. Res. 114 2002

By mis-quoting the constitution you've shown a lack of understanding for the basis of your arguments. There are some valid points to be argued, but you are missing them and they belong in a legal forum, not here.

And since your rants are going over about as well as an atheist missionary in Vatican City, maybe you should just quit.

libertyforall1776

iTrader: (2)

Ah, but it helps to emphasize original intent, and Congress has not declared war since WWII, so what does that tell ya? You realize there is a difference between a "declaration of war", and "police actions" or "[Communist founded UN] peacekeeping missions"? The first is crystal clear, the later are vague and does nothing Constitutional.

"Section 8. The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Letters of Marque and Reprisal should have been used for Afganistan if the reason for going there is for 9/11. Iraq should have never been invaded -- why are we doing Communist founded UN missions unconstitutionally?

"The Congress shall have Power To... provide for the common Defence" You will not find offense anywhere in the Constitution.

The reason for entrusting the Legislature (Congress) with the power to declare war was to ensure that the People would be involved in the decision as much as was physically possible.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...n-declare-war/

If Congress is just a rubber stamp to fund police actions for Presidents wanting to direct the military into conflict, they are not upholding their oath.

The following from Cong. Ron Paul: http://tinyurl.com/295b7tu (please do read this article, it will tie up the loose ends)

"There is always congressional "support" for a popular war, but the politicians want room to maneuver if the public later changes its mind. So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded "authorizations" that they can back away from easily if necessary.

It’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations dozens of times, yet does not mention the Constitution once. "

Starting to sink in yet? Our nation is being taken over by Communist founded UN supporting enemies of the Constitution. Plain as day. Ever notice that the Communist Manifesto planks have all but been adopted in this nation?

Arcolog2

iTrader: (1)

Someone needs to lock this ****. Any other thread that goes COMPLETELY off topic usually gets locked, so why not when some loony bin interupts and harrasses others?

Sam,

Thank you for starting this thread, we all really appreciate it very much man. Thanks to all the others that can take a second out of their day to THANK service members past and present.

TransWS6Am

iTrader: (41)

+1 could a mod please lock this thread.

Travis Johnson

iTrader: (2)

That quote regards only state powers, so it can only show intent of state powers. It has nothing to do with federal powers. If you want to defend the constitution, you cannot blatantly misrepresent it.

It is time this gets locked. It's completely off topic and is shamelessly being used to spout unsolicited political views. Plus a nice helping of insults and vulgarities in response. I'm done participating.

Where are the moderators?

libertyforall1776

iTrader: (2)

Understand that the original intent of the Constitution is defense -- you have to read the various documents of the time to understand the original intent -- Anti-Federalist Papers, Federalist Papers, speeches and of course the Constitution, etcetera.

The Constitution IS a list of what the federal government is authorized to do, with ALL ELSE being DENIED to it by default. The absense of specific constitutional authorization for anything means that the federal government is denied/prohibited by default. So unless you can find something to the contrary in the Constitution that allows the Fed Gov. to "stop them from gaining power" as Tillery stated (certainly NOTHING to do with defence, more offense and preemptive), it is not legal and against the will of We The People.

No misrepresentation, just showing the recurring theme that without provocation, war is not authorized in the Constitution, only defence is.



Here's a starting point, hosted by Northern Exposure star Janine Turner:
http://constitutingamerica.org/

tillery

iTrader: (4)

You must be a politician or swinging from the nuts of one.

scottywheels

He is just giving talking points from Ron Paul. Love his domestic policies however his military policies are a little nuts.

I appreciate all the kind words for us that have sacraficed so much for this great country.

wooddaniel

iTrader: (28)

Thanks all my brothers and sisters who wear the uniform. Army MP SGT and Iraqi Freedom veteran here. Thanks Sam for starting this thread.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Sam, Thank you for starting this thread and recognizing our soldiers who give so much to keep us free.

As for libertyforall1776, this is an automotive technical website, not a soap box for your political views. Keep posts like this in the lounge or you will have your account suspended.