Jose Padilla Will Be Freed

[shanek]

Not to ruffle any feathers, but in my mind, those people who disregard the rights of others don't deserve those rights themselves. And that includes those people who manipulate the laws in order to justify taking away rights from people.

I agree, they have forfeited there rights, with the caveat that certain rights can't be forfeited: due process, for example. But we should at least be able to throw them out.

 

[Zero]

I agree, they have forfeited there rights, with the caveat that certain rights can't be forfeited: due process, for example. But we should at least be able to throw them out.

Some people wouldn't mind getting rid of due process as well...

 

[ssibal]

You keep proffering this strawman...No one is claiming that it isn't a war, just that it isn't Constitutional to wage war without first having Congress declare it.

Actually, you are the only one claiming that it is not Constitutional to wage war without Congress declaring it. If you read above, this argument started when WildCat made this statement:

Sorry Shanek. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.

To which NightG1 responded:

War was declared? When did that happen?

WildCat made the claim we were at war, NightG1 challenged that claim. NightG1's statement implies that we were not at war because Congress did not declare it.

Because without the Congressional declaration, what we have is government lawlessness and political anarchy.

Nonsense, it is one thing to declare a state of war exists between two nations, it is another to give the president the authority to use the armed forces.

Only if Congress first declares it. Otherwise, they are operating without the
due authorization required by the Constitution.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? That is an interpretation that the Supreme Court currently disagrees with.

Yes: George W. Bush did. His pappy did as well. In other cases (such as Vietnam and Korea) they tried to get around it by calling it a "police action," but it was still a war by any other name.

How about one at a time, in what document does the current Bush declare war? Please provide a source.

The Supreme Court is NOT the "official interpreters of the Constitution." In Article III Section 2, the Constitution specifically says that the Supreme Court and all the lower courts have power "arising under this Constitution." The Supreme Court is supposed to be there to defend the Constitution and shoot down bad laws, not to "reinterpret" it to make those bad laws okay. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court NO POWER WHATSOEVER to interpret its meaning. So the fact that the Supreme Court is ignoring the Constitution doesn't help your argument any.

Unless you have a better way of determining if a law is in accordance with a partially ambiguous document, there is no way around the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution.

Complete bull$#!7. There MUST be a Congressional declaration in order for the war to be Constitutional. The Constitution DOES NOT give Congress the power to "approve" war, or to delegate its responsibility of declaration to the President or anyone else.

Nope, read any declaration of war you will see two main parts. First is the declaration that a state of war exists between the U.S. and nation X. The other is Congress giving the president the authority to use the military. The Constitution does not say there must be a Congressional declaration for a war to be Constitutional, it only says Congress shall have the power to declare war. If you read the rest of that section Congress has the power to pass whatever laws necessary to provide for the common defense (i.e. authorize the president to use military force).

Do you have ANY idea why the President is the head of the Executive branch, while Congress is the head of the Legislative branch? It's because Congress LEGISLATES; the President merely EXECUTES.

And Congress legislated on September 14, 2001.

Where? Transcript?

Are you seriously contending that there was no debate? That they just had the resolution written for them and just signed away without discussion or thinking about it?

 

[ssibal]

Why are you having such stubborn problems with basic English? The Constitution DOES NOT give others the power to declare war,

Agreed, but nobody else has declared war.

and it DOES NOT give others the power to wage war undeclared. IT'S NOT IN THERE ANYWHERE!

There is this:

The Congress shall have power to .... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

And this:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer

It starts off by saying "We the people." Work it out.

I am amazed that you of all people would selectively quote the Constitution to prove it applies to all people!

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

So is the Constitution still "for the people" or for the U.S.??

Dishonest snivelling. You were a citizen of your state; therefore, one could be a citizen of one or more states and be entitled to the protection of the several states. The Constitution expressly says that.

So prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment there WAS such a thing as a U.S. citizen....right?

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President

 

[shanek]

Actually, you are the only one claiming that it is not Constitutional to wage war without Congress declaring it. If you read above, this argument started when WildCat made this statement:

Sorry Shanek. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.

To which NightG1 responded:

War was declared? When did that happen?

WildCat made the claim we were at war, NightG1 challenged that claim. NightG1's statement implies that we were not at war because Congress did not declare it.

Why don't you read the passages you yourself quoted? WildCat's claim was based on what the Constitution meant at a time of war; NightG1's rebuttal was based on that. WildCat was the one that opened up the Constitutional door. But since this war isn't Constitutional, his argument doesn't even apply.

Nonsense, it is one thing to declare a state of war exists between two nations, it is another to give the president the authority to use the armed forces.

The Constitution already gives the President the authority to use the armed forces in time of war. That's why he's Commander-in-Chief. But in order for it to be a time of war under the Constitution, Congress must declare it, which, again, they didn't.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

It's been quoted to you twice.

That is an interpretation that the Supreme Court currently disagrees with.

Neither is the idea that we have the same free speech rights as incumbent politicians and the same free press rights as the big media corporations. Your point?

How about one at a time, in what document does the current Bush declare war? Please provide a source.

I never claimed he did and you know it. Stop weaseling.

Unless you have a better way of determining if a law is in accordance with a partially ambiguous document,

It's not ambiguous at all! What the hell's ambiguous about "Congress shall have the power to declare war"?

there is no way around the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution.

Well, the Supreme Court just "reinterpreted" the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." Again, this argument doesn't help you.

The Constitution does not say there must be a Congressional declaration for a war to be Constitutional, it only says Congress shall have the power to declare war.

But the Constitution gives no other procedure by which war may be declared, and no procedure by which war may be waged without a declaration. Again, if the Constitution doesn't say it, the Feds can't do it.

If you read the rest of that section Congress has the power to pass whatever laws necessary to provide for the common defense (i.e. authorize the president to use military force).[/b]

You're just making stuff up now. The rest of the section is just as specific as the paragraph we're discussing.

And Congress legislated on September 14, 2001.

Not within the boundaries set upby the Constitution. The Constitution gives them no authority whatsoever to transfer their obligation to the President.

Are you seriously contending that there was no debate? That they just had the resolution written for them and just signed away without discussion or thinking about it?

Your complete inability to address the point has been noted.

 

[shanek]

There is this:

The Congress shall have power to .... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

That's an introductory paragraph. the means for them to do so is laid out in the rest of the section. Honestly, do you really expect anyone to fall for this crap?

And this:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer

Read the highlighted portion. Again, maybe you should actually read thepassages you quote before you quote them.

I am amazed that you of all people would selectively quote the Constitution to prove it applies to all people!

I'm NOT amazed that you would be dishonest enough to try and state that the preamble somehow limits the Constitution to American citizens, when it doesnt' say anything of the kind. Everyone can see how desperate you've gotten.

So prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment there WAS such a thing as a U.S. citizen....right?

No...you were a citizen of your sovereign state. By extension, you were accorded all of the privileges granted to citizens of the several states.

Answer straight: If what you say is true, then why did the 14th Amendment need to state that we were citizens of the US?

 

[ssibal]

Why don't you read the passages you yourself quoted? WildCat's claim was based on what the Constitution meant at a time of war; NightG1's rebuttal was based on that. WildCat was the one that opened up the Constitutional door. But since this war isn't Constitutional, his argument doesn't even apply.

You must be reading something different because in the passages I quoted, WildCat did not say or imply anything about the constitutionality of war.

The Constitution already gives the President the authority to use the armed forces in time of war. That's why he's Commander-in-Chief.

Read Article II over, there is no mention of time of war. Furthermore, why has Congress granted the president the authority to use the military in every declaration of war? Why not just write that a state of war exists between the U.S. and nation X since the Constitution already gives the president the authority in time of war? Maybe it is because those powers have NOTHING to do with declaring war:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

No mention of "in a time of war."

But in order for it to be a time of war under the Constitution, Congress must declare it, which, again, they didn't.

The Constitution does not say in order for it to be a time of war Congress must declare it. It only says Congress shall have power to declare war. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's been quoted to you twice..

You can quote it a million times if you like but there is no possible way that you can turn "Congress shall have power to declare war" into "The only way to be a time of war under the Constitution is if Congress declares it." I guess the Civil War, was not really a (Constitutional) war, since Congress did not declare war

Neither is the idea that we have the same free speech rights as incumbent politicians and the same free press rights as the big media corporations. Your point?

The point is that the Supreme Court has to, and does interpret the Constitution to determine whether or not a law is in accordance with it.

I never claimed he did and you know it. Stop weaseling.

So when you responded to:

Did someone other than Congress declare war?

with:

Yes: George W. Bush did. His pappy did as well

...you were not claiming that they declared war?

It's not ambiguous at all! What the hell's ambiguous about "Congress shall have the power to declare war"?

Nothing, it means Congress has the power to declare war. Where you came up with the only way to be a time of war under the Constitution is if Congress declares it is a mystery. Regardless, I said the it was partly-ambiguous, that passage is pretty clear to me.

Well, the Supreme Court just "reinterpreted" the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." Again, this argument doesn't help you.

How about completing the sentence first....

But the Constitution gives no other procedure by which war may be declared,

Correct.

and no procedure by which war may be waged without a declaration.

Wrong, as I pointed out Congress can:

...make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States

Not within the boundaries set upby the Constitution. The Constitution gives them no authority whatsoever to transfer their obligation to the President.

What obligation did they transfer to the president? They gave him the authority to use the military. Last time I checked, that was the president's obligation, not Congress's.

Your complete inability to address the point has been noted.

Nice, now can you please answer the question? Are you seriously contending that there was no debate? That they just had the resolution written for them and just signed away without discussion or thinking about it?

 

[ssibal]

That's an introductory paragraph. the means for them to do so is laid out in the rest of the section. Honestly, do you really expect anyone to fall for this crap?

So let me get this straight. The section starts off with an "introductory paragraph" that starts with "Congress shall have power to" but Congress really only has power to do whatever is outside of that paragraph. When it says Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, that is really just an "introduction" to the means for them to do so (nevermind that the means for them to lay and collect taxes are not spelled out in that section). Interesting writing style. Start off one paragraph with a phrase (Congress shall have the power to) but only have it actually apply to the subsequent paragraphs.

Read the highlighted portion. Again, maybe you should actually read thepassages you quote before you quote them.

Yeah, silly of me to think that that power to provide for common defense really is not a foregoing power vested by the Constitution. I should have paid attention in civics class when they taught about Constitutional introductory paragraphs.

I'm NOT amazed that you would be dishonest enough to try and state that the preamble somehow limits the Constitution to American citizens, when it doesnt' say anything of the kind. Everyone can see how desperate you've gotten.

Wait, you merely quote "We the people" to prove that the Constitution applies to everyone and I am the dishonest one? Here is what I 'dishonestly' and 'desparately' have to say to that:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Answer straight: If what you say is true, then why did the 14th Amendment need to state that we were citizens of the US?

I do not know, I am still trying to figure out why the preamble says "this Constitution for the United States of America" when it really is for everyone in the world.

 

[shanek]

You must be reading something different because in the passages I quoted, WildCat did not say or imply anything about the constitutionality of war.

Hel-lo????

Sorry Shanek. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.

Read Article II over, there is no mention of time of war.

Section 2 begins:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

No mention of "in a time of war."

And what do you think "called into the actual service of the United States" means? Conducting a bake sale?

You can quote it a million times if you like but there is no possible way that you can turn "Congress shall have power to declare war" into "The only way to be a time of war under the Constitution is if Congress declares it."

If the Constitution doesn't say it, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO IT!!! Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? It doesn't HAVE to say it's the only way! It just has to fail to give any other method, which is what the Constitution has done.

Face it, you have no leg to stand on here.

The point is that the Supreme Court has to, and does interpret the Constitution to determine whether or not a law is in accordance with it.

The point is that you are completely unable to substantiate your assertions.

Nothing, it means Congress has the power to declare war. Where you came up with the only way to be a time of war under the Constitution is if Congress declares it is a mystery.

It's how the entire Constitution is set up! It explicitly enumerates the powers of government! If it ain't in the Constitution, the Feds can't do it! The fact that you repeatedly ignore this just shows how closed your mind is to this.

How about completing the sentence first....

Don't need to. That was the part they "interpreted." For example, "Congress shall make no law...bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," saying that it doesn't count if your a member of a challenging political party.

Correct.

Then they can't do it.

Wrong, as I pointed out Congress can:

What is it about the phrase "powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States" that escapes you?

What obligation did they transfer to the president?

The responsibility for making the decision whether or not to go to war.

So let me get this straight. The section starts off with an "introductory paragraph" that starts with "Congress shall have power to" but Congress really only has power to do whatever is outside of that paragraph. When it says Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, that is really just an "introduction" to the means for them to do so (nevermind that the means for them to lay and collect taxes are not spelled out in that section). Interesting writing style. Start off one paragraph with a phrase (Congress shall have the power to) but only have it actually apply to the subsequent paragraphs.

You are just being a dishonest, snivelling little weasel. The opening paragraph clearly states what powers are set forth in the section; it then proceeds to set out those powers.

I do not know, I am still trying to figure out why the preamble says "this Constitution for the United States of America" when it really is for everyone in the world.

Now you're just plain lying. I never SAID it was for everyone in the world. It is for the United States of America. And it says what the government of the United States of America can and cannot do, regardless of whether or not the person they're doing it to is a citizen.

But go on, ignore it all and stick your head in the sand. It's much nicer feeling that you're right instead of actually having to face the truth, isn't it?

 

[ssibal]

Hel-lo????

Hello what? He clearly states the Constitution does not apply to foreigners on foreign soil. I never denied that he said something about the Constitution, I quoted the passage! But what I am saying is that he did not say or imply anything about the constitutionality of war, which is the case. WildCat's claim was with regards to the Constitution applying to foreigners. It is like saying "the jury will find John Doe guilty of murder, especially if he has a prior conviction." The claim is that the jury will find John Doe guilty of murder. Not that they will find him guilty if he has a prior conviction. Just like WildCat did not mean the Constitution does not apply to foreigners because it is a time of war. How about WildCat shed some light on what he meant?

Section 2 begins:
And what do you think "called into the actual service of the United States" means? Conducting a bake sale?

It means when Congress says you can go ahead and use the military the president does so. Once again, no mention of a Constitutional declaration of war being necessary.

If the Constitution doesn't say it, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO IT!!! Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? It doesn't HAVE to say it's the only way! It just has to fail to give any other method, which is what the Constitution has done.

But it does give another method, Congress shall have power to:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution

and the foregoing power is:

provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

But now you want to deny that Congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

The point is that you are completely unable to substantiate your assertions.

What? Open up any Supreme Court case. My assertion that they are the official interpreters of the Constitution is well documented, whether or not you agree with or like it.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court

They are the ultimate judges of what is or is not in accordance with the Constitution, and making that determination will usually require......interpretation of the law!

It's how the entire Constitution is set up! It explicitly enumerates the powers of government! If it ain't in the Constitution, the Feds can't do it! The fact that you repeatedly ignore this just shows how closed your mind is to this.

Congress shall have power to:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution

and the foregoing power is:

provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

What does the fact that you repeatedly ignore this show?

Don't need to. That was the part they "interpreted." For example, "Congress shall make no law...bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," saying that it doesn't count if your a member of a challenging political party.

Right, just like they interpret that same law saying you cannot threaten to kill people, no libel, slander,....etc. Or are those unconstitutional as well.

What is it about the phrase "powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States" that escapes you?

Nothing, what is it about the phrase "Congress shall have power....to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" that escapes you?

The responsibility for making the decision whether or not to go to war.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the responsibility for making the decision of whether or not to go to war is up to Congress?

You are just being a dishonest, snivelling little weasel. The opening paragraph clearly states what powers are set forth in the section; it then proceeds to set out those powers.

Really? How is the laying and collection of taxes set out in that section? Oh wait, here it is:

Congress shall have power....To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States

Now you're just plain lying. I never SAID it was for everyone in the world. It is for the United States of America. And it says what the government of the United States of America can and cannot do, regardless of whether or not the person they're doing it to is a citizen.

So you think all references to "the people" in the Constitution refers to the people of the world rather than the people of the U.S.? That is ridiculous.

 

[shanek]

Hello what? He clearly states the Constitution does not apply to foreigners on foreign soil. I never denied that he said something about the Constitution, I quoted the passage! But what I am saying is that he did not say or imply anything about the constitutionality of war, which is the case.

No, it isn't! Look at the quote yet again:

The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.

THAT is his claim. In order for that claim to be true, there must be some sort of restriction somewhere in the Constitution that makes it not apply. Never mind the fact that there isn't one; the point is, even if there were, it would certainly mean that "at time of war" would refer exclusively to a war waged under the auspices of the Constitution.

It means when Congress says you can go ahead and use the military the president does so. Once again, no mention of a Constitutional declaration of war being necessary.

Again, there is NO OTHER METHOD WHATSOEVER enumerated in the Constitution of allowing the use of the military! Declaration of War is the ONLY method enumerated by which this may be done! So by exclusion, yes, a declaration of war is necessary. I have explained this to you several times! Why do you continue to ignore it and just say the same thing over and over again?

and the foregoing power is:

I've already explained to you twice why you're wrong about that. But you won't listen. You don't want to.

But just in case there is a tiny crack in that closed mind of yours, consider that it says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises[/b]

but then in the next section says:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

So the "powers" you mention ARE NOT ABSOLUTE. It is an introductory clause ONLY. Otherwise, how do you get around this contradiction?

What? Open up any Supreme Court case. My assertion that they are the official interpreters of the Constitution is well documented,

Not in the Constitution, which is the only document that matters. The fact that there's documentation of them acting improperly doesn't mean they're not acting improperly.

What does the fact that you repeatedly ignore this show?

I HAVEN'T IGNORED IT, YOU LIAR!!! I HAVE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES!!!!!

Right, just like they interpret that same law saying you cannot threaten to kill people, no libel, slander,....etc. Or are those unconstitutional as well.

Those are STATE crimes. The only FEDERAL crimes permitted under the Constitution are treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Yes, the Feds have been intruding into these areas, and those intrusions are unconstitutional, but what else is new?

Nothing, what is it about the phrase "Congress shall have power....to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" that escapes you?

Explained to you, several times. But you'd apparently prefer to LIE about it than actually consider what I've said.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the responsibility for making the decision of whether or not to go to war is up to Congress?

Already answered, several times.

So you think all references to "the people" in the Constitution refers to the people of the world rather than the people of the U.S.? That is ridiculous.

It's clear that you think so, but it's also clear that you refuse to support your assertion.

 

[gnome]

What kills me is how, whenever we notice due process failing, those who argue back always point out how big of a scumbag we're defending.

Can someone please explain in what way this is relevant? Are you advocating a system where the government can bypass due process as long as someone is arguaby a horrible scumbag?

 

[ssibal]

No, it isn't! Look at the quote yet again:



THAT is his claim. In order for that claim to be true, there must be some sort of restriction somewhere in the Constitution that makes it not apply. Never mind the fact that there isn't one; the point is, even if there were, it would certainly mean that "at time of war" would refer exclusively to a war waged under the auspices of the Constitution.

Like I said, let us see what WildCat has to say.

Again, there is NO OTHER METHOD WHATSOEVER enumerated in the Constitution of allowing the use of the military! Declaration of War is the ONLY method enumerated by which this may be done! So by exclusion, yes, a declaration of war is necessary. I have explained this to you several times! Why do you continue to ignore it and just say the same thing over and over again?

Why do you continue to insist that declaring a state of war exists between the U.S. and another nation is the same as allowing the use of the military? Why is it that every declaration of war first declares a state of war exists AND THEN gives the president the authority to use the military? If "Congress shall have power to declare war" meant that once war is declared the military can be used, then why do they go through the trouble of giving the president the authority to use the military if he supposedly already would have it?

I've already explained to you twice why you're wrong about that. But you won't listen. You don't want to.

So the "powers" you mention ARE NOT ABSOLUTE. It is an introductory clause ONLY. Otherwise, how do you get around this contradiction?

What contradiction? When did I claim that those powers were absolute? And you accuse me of being a liar....

Not in the Constitution, which is the only document that matters. The fact that there's documentation of them acting improperly doesn't mean they're not acting improperly.

Improperly? There is no escaping interpretation of what the law says when you are a judge. You yourself are interpreting the Constitution. You selectivly take some parts literally and others you do not. "Congress shall have power to declare war," you do not interpret that literally. You inject your notion that a war is not Constitutional if it is not declared and the president cannot wage war unless it is declared. None of that is stated in the Constitution, that is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the phrase.

Those are STATE crimes. The only FEDERAL crimes permitted under the Constitution are treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Yes, the Feds have been intruding into these areas, and those intrusions are unconstitutional, but what else is new?

Oh so if a state decides to eliminate free speech, free press, and free assembly that is okay, since it was not Congress that passed the law. You should be glad that the Supreme Court does not INTERPRET the first ammendment to allow such laws (i.e. the way you currently INTERPRET it).

Already answered, several times.

No you have not answered the question even once. And I will ask again, where in the Constitution does it say that the responsibility for making the decision of whether or not to go to war (i.e. wage war) is up to Congress. Please quote the appropriate passage. Before you answer "Congress shall have power to declare war" ask yourself if declaring war and waging war are the same thing.

It's clear that you think so, but it's also clear that you refuse to support your assertion.

Seems like common sense to me, but I keep forgeting that my interpretation of the Constitution is different than your INTERPRETATION.

 

[shanek]

What contradiction?

The one in the tax example you dishonestly snipped. According to your logic, they have the power to lay taxes (which would include direct taxes, again according to your logic) but then somewhere else it says they can't lay direct taxes.

The only sensible meaning of this is that Congress is given the power to lay taxes in one place, and what taxes may be laid is given elsewhere. In one place it says what kind of taxes can be laid, and in the other it says who can lay them. Just like in one place it says that Congress is the entity to provide for the common defense and then elsewhere says how they can do it.

I don't know how many other ways I can explain it to you...I guess as many times as you ignore it, huh?

You selectivly take some parts literally and others you do not.

That is a big fat lie and you know it.

"Congress shall have power to declare war," you do not interpret that literally. You inject your notion that a war is not Constitutional if it is not declared and the president cannot wage war unless it is declared.

That is NOT injected! As I have tried to get through your stubborn, closed little mind several times, if that is the ONLY way the Constitution says they can do it, then THEY CAN'T DO IT ANY OTHER WAY!

If you can't point out where the Constiution gives the power to defer the waging of war to the President, or the waging of war without a declaration, then THEY JUST CAN'T DO IT, because IT ISN'T THERE.

None of that is stated in the Constitution,

It doesn't HAVE to be!!! It HAS to be stated in order to be a power!!! YOU are the one injecting things that aren't there!

Oh so if a state decides to eliminate free speech, free press, and free assembly that is okay, since it was not Congress that passed the law.

No, it's not okay because the 14th Amendment expanded that protection to the states. yourself.

And yes, before then states could, for example, establish religions unless their own Constitution forbade it, and some of them did.

No you have not answered the question even once.

You are just such an incredible liar it is disgusting. I have answered you several times. Anyone here can see that. I have stated it again in this very post.; But go on, stick your head back into the sand. I'm sure it's much more comfortable than facing the possibility that you might be wrong.

Liar.

 

[ssibal]

The one in the tax example you dishonestly snipped. According to your logic, they have the power to lay taxes (which would include direct taxes, again according to your logic) but then somewhere else it says they can't lay direct taxes.

The only sensible meaning of this is that Congress is given the power to lay taxes in one place, and what taxes may be laid is given elsewhere. In one place it says what kind of taxes can be laid, and in the other it says who can lay them. Just like in one place it says that Congress is the entity to provide for the common defense and then elsewhere says how they can do it.

This is nothing but a strawman since I never claimed that those powers were absolute. You made that up. Furthermore, it does not address the fact that that Congress has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States" (i.e. make any laws necessary and proper to lay and collect taxes). Obviously, the examples you provided would not fall under the 'proper' clause.

That is NOT injected! As I have tried to get through your stubborn, closed little mind several times, if that is the ONLY way the Constitution says they can do it, then THEY CAN'T DO IT ANY OTHER WAY!

Do you not understand the difference between declaring war and waging war?

If you can't point out where the Constiution gives the power to defer the waging of war to the President, or the waging of war without a declaration, then THEY JUST CAN'T DO IT, because IT ISN'T THERE.

Actually, there is NOTHING in the Constitution about waging war, so every war, declared or not is unconstitutional.

It doesn't HAVE to be!!! It HAS to be stated in order to be a power!!! YOU are the one injecting things that aren't there!

So there is no power to wage war in the Constitution, it is not stated anywhere.

No, it's not okay because the 14th Amendment expanded that protection to the states. yourself.

You mean the protection of "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." So are you saying that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States is the Constitution? Doesn't that contradict your notion that the Constitution is not solely for U.S. citizens?

You are just such an incredible liar it is disgusting. I have answered you several times. Anyone here can see that. I have stated it again in this very post.; But go on, stick your head back into the sand. I'm sure it's much more comfortable than facing the possibility that you might be wrong.

Answer this: Is declaring war and waging war the same thing?

 

[shanek]

Furthermore, it does not address the fact that that Congress has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States" (i.e. make any laws necessary and proper to lay and collect taxes).

As long as the Constitution permits said tax! It says that in the part you quoted!

Do you not understand the difference between declaring war and waging war?

Yes, I do. Do you understand the difference between the Constitution saying something and not saying something?

Actually, there is NOTHING in the Constitution about waging war, so every war, declared or not is unconstitutional.

Bull$#!7. It specifically gives Congress the power to declare war, and the President to carry it out once called into action by said declaration.

You mean the protection of "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

No, I mean POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT. The Constitution restricts what the government can do. And although some places the Constitution mentions citizens, other places it doesn't. But, I guess they really MEANT citizens the whole time, because, uh, well, because you say so, right?

So are you saying that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States is the Constitution? Doesn't that contradict your notion that the Constitution is not solely for U.S. citizens?

No, it simply means that specific passages of the Constitution apply to citizens, and others restrict what government can do regardless of whether or not the people they're doing it to are citizens.

There is no contradiction here. You only see one because your bigoted mind wants to.

Answer this: Is declaring war and waging war the same thing?

No. But under the Constitution, declaration of war is the only method granted to Congress of calling the military into action.

 

[ssibal]

Yes, I do. Do you understand the difference between the Constitution saying something and not saying something?

I do, do you? Remember, the Constitution does not say anything about waging war.

Bull$#!7. It specifically gives Congress the power to declare war, and the President to carry it out once called into action by said declaration.

This brings us back to interpretation, since the Constitution does not say that a declaration of war is the "calling into the actual service of the United States."

No, I mean POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT. The Constitution restricts what the government can do. And although some places the Constitution mentions citizens, other places it doesn't. But, I guess they really MEANT citizens the whole time, because, uh, well, because you say so, right?

We will never know what they really meant, I am just giving my reasons for why I think it means citizens the whole time. But if you think it is so far fetched that the U.S. Constitution would be for U.S. citizens only, I cannot do anything about that.

No, it simply means that specific passages of the Constitution apply to citizens, and others restrict what government can do regardless of whether or not the people they're doing it to are citizens.

So when the Constitution says "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." it means that Saddam Hussein, for example, can be convictied of treason? I mean, it does not specify anywhere that it has to be a citizen....

No. But under the Constitution, declaration of war is the only method granted to Congress of calling the military into action.

The Constitution does not state any method granted to Congress of calling the military into action. That is interpretation.

 

[shanek]

We will never know what they really meant,

Bull$#!7. We know exactly what they meant, because they told us so, in the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, and in the debates. All of this is recorded and freely available. Just read at the documents linked to here:

http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm

 

[ssibal]

Bull$#!7. We know exactly what they meant, because they told us so, in the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, and in the debates. All of this is recorded and freely available. Just read at the documents linked to here:

http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm

Read what Hamiltion has to say about interpreting the Constitution (Federalist paper 78):

...The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body....

 

[shanek]

Read what Hamiltion has to say about interpreting the Constitution (Federalist paper 78):

Nice way to pull stuff out of context.

From the very same paper:

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.

It is clear that Hamilton would not approve of the "interpretation" that has been going on of late. And it's clear that he believed in "inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution" and "bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments" and should "regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws." You took one paragraph where he's saying nothing more than the judges should "ascertain the meaning" of the Constitution (which does NOT mean "interpret" it), and ascertain the meaning of the law, and if the two are in contradiction, they must find the law invalid. The paragraphs I quoted make that crystal clear.