Military Isolationism Is the Answer

[MrFrankZito]

Here is my Military Isolationist's Manifesto...agree or disagree with it?

Our current international scene is neatly divided into autonomous states. One state cannot impose its governance on another. Each state, essentially, is responsible for itself. We are a world community only inasmuch as each state neighbors all the others, not because we are mutually involved in each others' affairs.

With this in mind, let me make a very unusual argument for a left-leaning person...

I don't like the UN. I don't like NATO. I don't like ANY permanent alliances, or any other type of international governance that attempts to deprive each state of its own autonomy.

This is the heart of my opposition to our Iraq invasion, as well as my reason for opposing involvement in Kosovo, or, going back in history a bit, my reason for opposing involvement during the Rwanda violence. It also represents the reasoning behind my opposition to the US getting involved in Sudan right now.

Quite frankly, intrastate business that isn't occurring within the United States isn't the United States' business. Is Saddam torturing and killing hundreds of thousands? Maybe, but it's not our business. Are hundreds of thousands of Rwandans dying as a result of bloody civil war? Maybe, but again it's not our business. Not to be callous, but it really isn't.

As a libertarian, I believe the military should be used to defend the United States from imminent attacks against the US, or to avenge direct attacks against the US. We have no obligation to involve ourselves in anything else, nor should we elect to engage in such involvement. Every state should be responsible for itself.

Imagine how much time and money we'd save if we totally disengaged from the Middle East peace process and let them figure it out for themselves. Imagine how much time and money we'd save if we let Iraq determine its own future, even if that future were under Saddam's oppressive thumb.

Quite frankly, the United States' business is exclusively restricted to affairs directly involving the United States and nothing more.

Bear in mind, before voting, that I do not argue the life of one's countryman is somehow inherently more valuable than the life of a foreigner. My objection to internationalism lies in the fact that, to me, it represents stepping outside one's proper jurisdiction. NYPD officers do not think that Texan lives are less valuable than New Yorker lives, but NYPD officers still do not investigate a murder in Dallas. Why? They respect jurisdictional boundaries. Texans are responsible for Texas; New Yorkers are responsible for New York. Following that example, the Sudanese are responsible for Sudan, Iraqis are responsible for Iraq, Rwandans are responsible for Rwanda, and Albanians are responsible for Albania. And, finally, the US is responsible for itself.

 

[Earthborn]

NYPD officers still do not investigate a murder in Dallas.

Ah, but what if a murder happened in Dallas and the murderer moved to New York? Then the police in Texas and in New York must have some agreements ready that tell them how they are going to help eachother, who is going to catch that murderer and where he ends up in jail. Good thing they do.

Scale that to the world and you can easily see that different countries also need to have all sorts of treaties with eachother. They generally don't want their criminals get away to another country, they don't want other country's criminals, they also want to make sure someone else's polution ends up in their country.

Treaties between different nations are nice, but then you eventually get treaty disputes. You can fight over every dispute, but since most people dislike war, they prefer to form some sort of authority to settle disputes instead. And then you end up with the UN.

A country cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world. All countries depend on eachother in intricate ways. The fact that I write this message to you is proof that the world is getting smaller by the minute. The fact that someone or something on the other end of the world can affect you shows that it is rather foolish to pretend a country can really be 'autonomous'.

This is in no way a justification for barging in with the military everytime something isn't to your liking. It just shows that you can't pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist.

Imagine how much time and money we'd save if we totally disengaged from the Middle East peace process and let them figure it out for themselves.

If by 'Middle East peace process' you mean the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, then I don't think it costs the US all that much. And sometimes two warring sides need a third party to negotiate between them.

Imagine how much time and money we'd save if we let Iraq determine its own future, even if that future were under Saddam's oppressive thumb.

Yes, but that became a problem because it was (erroneously) believed that Iraq posed a direct threat to the US.

Quite frankly, the United States' business is exclusively restricted to affairs directly involving the United States and nothing more.

The US is a world hegemon, so everything everywhere on the planet directly involves the US.

We are a world community only inasmuch as each state neighbors all the others, not because we are mutually involved in each others' affairs.

I think you are mistaken.

 

[shanek]

Ah, but what if a murder happened in Dallas and the murderer moved to New York? Then the police in Texas and in New York must have some agreements ready that tell them how they are going to help eachother, who is going to catch that murderer and where he ends up in jail. Good thing they do.

Excuse me, but I think you're making his point. The Dallas police must work with the NYPD to extradite the suspect. The Dallas police can't just go storming into New York to get him.

I think his problem is in calling it "isolationism," when I think he really means "noninterventionism."

Scale that to the world and you can easily see that different countries also need to have all sorts of treaties with eachother. They generally don't want their criminals get away to another country, they don't want other country's criminals, they also want to make sure someone else's polution ends up in their country.

I would also point out that there is a difference between a treaty and an alliance.

Treaties between different nations are nice, but then you eventually get treaty disputes. You can fight over every dispute, but since most people dislike war, they prefer to form some sort of authority to settle disputes instead. And then you end up with the UN.

But the UN has claimed power and authority that goes way beyond this.

A country cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world.

I don't think he's doing that. None of what he said would contradict the idea of free trade.

If by 'Middle East peace process' you mean the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, then I don't think it costs the US all that much. And sometimes two warring sides need a third party to negotiate between them.

But when that negotiating party is unwelcome by at least one side, it's not going to do any good.

Yes, but that became a problem because it was (erroneously) believed that Iraq posed a direct threat to the US.

You have much more faith than I do that anyone actually believed that, instead of just using it as a pretext.

The US is a world hegemon,

Really? Where does the Constitution say that?

I think you are mistaken.

I agree that he's mistaken on this, or at least he worded it badly. We are involved in trade and relations with each other. The fact that I in North Carolina can have a debate with you in the Netherlands is proof of that. But the point is that the government shouldn't have any business interfering with that. If I smoke cigars (which I don't), I should be able to buy them from Cuba. If I'm an oil company, I should be able to buy my oil from Iraq, Kuwait, or whomever I want to.

 

[Earthborn]

I think his problem is in calling it "isolationism," when I think he really means "noninterventionism."

I think so, too.

But the UN has claimed power and authority that goes way beyond this.

Which is?

None of what he said would contradict the idea of free trade.

I think it does. He said this: "We are a world community only inasmuch as each state neighbors all the others, not because we are mutually involved in each others' affairs."

Free world trade does make us all mutually involved in each others' affairs, simply by increasingly becoming interdependent.

But when that negotiating party is unwelcome by at least one side, it's not going to do any good.

The Clinton administration apperently wasn't. It's just that you got a new administration that is substantially more one-sided.

You have much more faith than I do that anyone actually believed that, instead of just using it as a pretext.

Well, we have to go with what we know. And there is no reason to assume malice since stupidity has hardly been disproven.

Really? Where does the Constitution say that?

Next to the section on prison camps in Cuba and elsewhere, having military bases scattered around the globe and being able to bully other nations about the treaties they sign.

Which is to say: nowhere. Just because it isn't in the Constitution does not mean it isn't true.

But the point is that the government shouldn't have any business interfering with that.

It seems to me that he is arguing that countries should be independent from eachother. Which is somewhat hard since almost everything is made in China.

If I smoke cigars (which I don't), I should be able to buy them from Cuba. If I'm an oil company, I should be able to buy my oil from Iraq, Kuwait, or whomever I want to.

You name quite a few countries where the things you want to buy are in the government's hands. How does that jive with your Libertarian principles?

 

[drkitten]

Really? Where does the Constitution say that?

There are aspects of reality that the Constitution remains silent on. For example, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the capital of the United States is in Washington, D.C. The Constitution is silent about whether the Earth or Mars is the third planet from the Sun. Nothing in the Constitution describes how or why objects fall down when they are released. Nothing in the Constitution states that the majority of people in the United States speak English.

And for that matter, nothing in the Constitution states that you are a raving nutjob. I guess some things just happen, with or without Constitutional sanction.

 

[Kerberos]

There are aspects of reality that the Constitution remains silent on.

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! BURN THE HERETIC!!!!!!!!

 

[shanek]

Which is?

The UN is trying to control a lot of the internal affairs of countries, from labor to environmental policies and many more.

I think it does. He said this: "We are a world community only inasmuch as each state neighbors all the others, not because we are mutually involved in each others' affairs."

Perhaps. I think we should let him clarify.

The Clinton administration apperently wasn't. It's just that you got a new administration that is substantially more one-sided.

But we're a republic. We're constantly changing administrations. I don't want these kind of things dependent on who happens to be in power at the time.

Well, we have to go with what we know. And there is no reason to assume malice since stupidity has hardly been disproven.

True, but the depths of their stupidity would have to be extreme. There were people expressing doubt at the time (if you recall, I was one) and the Bush administration got everyone to dismiss them as anti-American terrorist-lovers.

Next to the section on prison camps in Cuba and elsewhere, having military bases scattered around the globe and being able to bully other nations about the treaties they sign.

Which is to say: nowhere. Just because it isn't in the Constitution does not mean it isn't true.

Oh, believe me, I understand that.

It seems to me that he is arguing that countries should be independent from eachother.

From a standpoint of government, and in particular the military (the thread title specifically says "military isolationism"), sure, but what about individuals doing business with each other?

Again, I think we might wait for him to speak for himself.

You name quite a few countries where the things you want to buy are in the government's hands. How does that jive with your Libertarian principles?

If I were a citizen of those countries, that would be one thing. But government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. As I am not among those governed, I have no business telling them what form of government they should have. I'll buy what I want from whomever is selling. If there is a reason to boycott a product, such as it's being made by an oppressive government, then I'll do that; but I want the freedom to make that call for myself. I don't want my government telling me whom I can and can't buy from.

 

[shanek]

There are aspects of reality that the Constitution remains silent on. For example, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the capital of the United States is in Washington, D.C.

But it does give them the power to establish a seat of power, in Article I Section 8 Clause 17. Bad example.

The Constitution is silent about whether the Earth or Mars is the third planet from the Sun. Nothing in the Constitution describes how or why objects fall down when they are released.

The Constitution defines the government of the United States. Anything else is irrelevant. It's not supposed to cover other things.

Nothing in the Constitution states that the majority of people in the United States speak English.

Because the Constitution establishes the government not the people. It's established by the people, who can speak whatever language they bloody well want to.

[personal attack deleted]

 

[drkitten]

The Constitution defines the government of the United States. Anything else is irrelevant. It's not supposed to cover other things.

... and among the things that it's not supposed to cover are questions about the world geopolitical state, such as the degree of world hegemony exercised by the United States.

The question of whether the United States is a world hegemon is just as irrelevant to the text of the Constitution as is the acceleration due to gravity, or the location of the seat of government, or the address of the Supreme Court.

 

[shanek]

... and among the things that it's not supposed to cover are questions about the world geopolitical state, such as the degree of world hegemony exercised by the United States.

Except that there's nothing in the Constitution allowing the government to act in such a way. Hegemony is "the domination of one state over its allies" (according to WorldNet Dictionary) and nothing in the Constitution authorizes that.

 

[drkitten]

Except that there's nothing in the Constitution allowing the government to act in such a way. Hegemony is "the domination of one state over its allies" (according to WorldNet Dictionary) and nothing in the Constitution authorizes that.

Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the construction of a residence for the President at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, either. The Federal government is allowed (Article I, section 8, clause 3, and Article 2, section 2, clause 2) to engage in foreign relationships. Just as nothing says that the President can't live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, nothing says that the foreign relationships can't include alliances or domination by one state over another.

I know a lot of Biblical fundamentalists who have apparently never read the Bible. They usually vote Republican.

I know a number of Constitutional fundamentalists who have apparently never read the Constitution. They usually vote Libertarian.

 

[shanek]

Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the construction of a residence for the President at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, either.

Uh, wrong again. It's part of the seat of power. Article I Section 8 Clause 17.

The Federal government is allowed (Article I, section 8, clause 3, and Article 2, section 2, clause 2) to engage in foreign relationships.

The former gives them jurisdiction over the commerce; the latter to make treaties. No one here has said otherwise.

[even more personal attacks deleted]

 

[Earthborn]

The UN is trying to control a lot of the internal affairs of countries, from labor to environmental policies and many more.

For as far as these really are 'internal affairs' how much power does the UN have to dictate what a country can do without having its government agree with it?

I don't think many of the environmental policies the UN deals with are 'internal affairs'. Can you name one?

But we're a republic. We're constantly changing administrations. I don't want these kind of things dependent on who happens to be in power at the time.

So you don't want how well the US is liked in foreign countries to be dependent on who is in power? I love to hear you proposal on how to achieve that.

True, but the depths of their stupidity would have to be extreme.

Are the many reasons to assume that they aren't?

I'll buy what I want from whomever is selling. If there is a reason to boycott a product, such as it's being made by an oppressive government, then I'll do that; but I want the freedom to make that call for myself. I don't want my government telling me whom I can and can't buy from.

I asked a question about your own personal morality, not what you think you should be allowed to do by the government.

Let's discuss that now. Basically you are saying that people should be free to trade with oppresive regime and buy from them what they like, even if these oppresive regimes stole it from their people? They should have the freedom to make that call themselves? How does that jive with your Libertarian principles?

And if people have the freedom to support oppression in other countries, why not in their own?

Hegemony is "the domination of one state over its allies"

Sounds about right.

nothing in the Constitution authorizes that.

So when the US places nuclear weapons in another country without even telling its government, it commits a unconstitutional act? Okay, good to know next time it happens. Where do I file a complaint, and more importantly how do I figure out that it happened?

 

[shanek]

For as far as these really are 'internal affairs' how much power does the UN have to dictate what a country can do without having its government agree with it?

Well, Article 22 of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires governments to run a Social Security scam. Articles 23 and 24 represent the very kind of intrusion into free market employment that we're talking about here. Article 25 basically mandates welfare and minimum wage. Article 26 requires government education and compulsory attendance (we have the right to be forced to do something?). I could go on. It's bad enough that they don't understand what rights are; much worse that they're trying to force their way on everyone.

I don't think many of the environmental policies the UN deals with are 'internal affairs'. Can you name one?

So you don't want how well the US is liked in foreign countries to be dependent on who is in power?

I don't want them to have that kind of power to abuse.

I love to hear you proposal on how to achieve that.

Make them obey the Constitution.

Are the many reasons to assume that they aren't?

I'd have to say their tactics upon being questioned on this issue certainly indicate an attempt to evade the truth of the situation.

I asked a question about your own personal morality, not what you think you should be allowed to do by the government.

Personally, no, I won't support a tyrannical government by purchasing their products if I can avoid it. But I have no right to use force to stop other people from purchasing them.

How does that jive with your Libertarian principles?

Because to do otherwise would be to dictate what kind of government they should have.

So when the US places nuclear weapons in another country without even telling its government, it commits a unconstitutional act?

I'd say so.

Okay, good to know next time it happens. Where do I file a complaint,

File a suit in Federal court.

 

[drkitten]

Uh, wrong again. It's part of the seat of power. Article I Section 8 Clause 17.



The former gives them jurisdiction over the commerce; the latter to make treaties. No one here has said otherwise.

So constructing the White House (at a specific address, no less) is Constitutionally authorized as being inferrable from the general authority to establish a seat of power.

But dominating allies politically or economically is unConstitutional because it's not explicitly stated, despite being inferrable from the general and unfettered authority to make treaties and to conduct commerce with foreign nations.

Your slip is showing....

 

[shanek]

So constructing the White House (at a specific address, no less) is Constitutionally authorized as being inferrable from the general authority to establish a seat of power.

Because the Constitution specifically grants them "exclusive" power there.

But dominating allies politically or economically is unConstitutional because it's not explicitly stated, despite being inferrable from the general and unfettered authority to make treaties and to conduct commerce with foreign nations.

They aren't granted exclusive power to do that. They can only do it under the scope of the functions in Article I Section 8.

 

[Earthborn]

Well, Article 22 of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires governments to run a Social Security scam.

No, it doesn't. If social security (which in this case does not mean a state pension system) can be established by private enterprise, a country is in complete accordance with this article. You believe that the Free Market is more social and more secure, so if you are right all that is needed is to establish a free market.

Articles 23 and 24 represent the very kind of intrusion into free market employment that we're talking about here.

Hardly.

Article 25 basically mandates welfare and minimum wage.

No, it doesn't. You are the one who always claims that the working poor would be better off without a minimum wage. If that's true, then you can protect this right by abolishing minimum wage.

Article 26 requires government education

No, it requires free education. Nowhere does it say the government should provide it.

and compulsory attendance

For children.

It's bad enough that they don't understand what rights are

They know perfectly well what rights are. The Declaration just uses a different concept of rights than Libertarian philosophy does. But since Libertarians don't have a monopoly on the definition of words, it is perfectly legitimate.

much worse that they're trying to force their way on everyone.

And how exactly is the UN forcing it on anyone? Don't nations have to ratify it before it becomes applicable to them?

I don't want them to have that kind of power to abuse.

How is getting warring factions together to negotiate a form of abuse?

Make them obey the Constitution.

I love to hear your proposal on how to achieve that.

I'd have to say their tactics upon being questioned on this issue certainly indicate an attempt to evade the truth of the situation.

Which could just mean that they don't like to admit to have blundered. Much easier to explain every accidental positive result of the blunder as a huge success that made it all worthwhile.

Because to do otherwise would be to dictate what kind of government they should have.

I don't understand how forbidding people from trading in stolen goods from oppresive regimes dictates the people in other countries what kind of government they should have. Perhaps you can explain that further.

File a suit in Federal court.

You think anyone will take it seriously?

 

[shanek]

No, it doesn't. If social security (which in this case does not mean a state pension system) can be established by private enterprise, a country is in complete accordance with this article.

"Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality."

Check the highlighted portion. Has to be a government thing.

Hardly.

Then what's "protection against unemployment"? "[T]he right to equal pay for equal work"? "[T]he right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection"? "[R]easonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay"?

No, it doesn't. You are the one who always claims that the working poor would be better off without a minimum wage. If that's true, then you can protect this right by abolishing minimum wage.

Then what is "right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family" all about? Or "the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood"?

No, it requires free education. Nowhere does it say the government should provide it.

"Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace." How is this going to be made in compliance outside of government education? And "Elementary education shall be compulsory." You can't deny that one.

They know perfectly well what rights are.

Then why do so many of these "rights" entitle people to the property of others?

This is a Socialist document, plain and simple.

The Declaration just uses a different concept of rights than Libertarian philosophy does.

Yes: the Socialist definition. Which pretty much forces all countries to be Socialist in order to be in compliance.

And how exactly is the UN forcing it on anyone? Don't nations have to ratify it before it becomes applicable to them?

Saddam Hussein didn't, and he got invaded as a result.

I love to hear your proposal on how to achieve that.

Elect legislators and executives who are dedicated to the Constitution. Educate the people as to what the Constitution means and why it's not advisable to elect people who circumvent it.

Which could just mean that they don't like to admit to have blundered.

Except they were doing this before Iraq was invaded. There was no "blunder" yet.

I don't understand how forbidding people from trading in stolen goods from oppresive regimes dictates the people in other countries what kind of government they should have.

It isn't; it's prohibiting me from trading with them freely.

You think anyone will take it seriously?

If it's a serious violation, why wouldn't they?

And if they don't, surely in the country they're doing it in there's a similar system to redress grievances.

 

[Earthborn]

Has to be a government thing.

No, it hasn't

Then what's "protection against unemployment"? "[T]he right to equal pay for equal work"? "[T]he right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection"? "[R]easonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay"?

Are you claiming that the free market can't provide these? You have always been claiming that it can.

Then what is "right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family" all about? Or "the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood"?

All things the free market provides best, according to you.

How is this going to be made in compliance outside of government education?

Public education that is not offered by the government, as you have always maintained is possible.

And "Elementary education shall be compulsory." You can't deny that one.

No, and I won't. I also don't see the harm in sending children to school. It is not that they can be trusted to make the right decision about their education anyway.

Then why do so many of these "rights" entitle people to the property of others?

None of these rights do. They only make people entitled to things, not that these things must be taken away from others. If they can be provided by people voluntarily giving them, there is no problem.

Which pretty much forces all countries to be Socialist in order to be in compliance.

Then it is fairly surprising that the countries that signed it have such free markets and score high in the Economic Freedom index, while those that didn't score so low.

Saddam Hussein didn't, and he got invaded as a result.

Iraq was invaded by the UN because Saddam Hussein didn't ratify the Human Rights Declaration? What an impressive piece of revisionism!

If it is such a Socialist document, why didn't he sign it? Iraq was a fairly Socialist country, you know.

Elect legislators and executives who are dedicated to the Constitution.

They are all dedicated to the Constitution, or so they say. How do you measure 'dedication to the Constitution'.

Educate the people as to what the Constitution means

Will any interpretation other than the Libertarian one be educated? Who is going to finance this 'education' ?

It isn't; it's prohibiting me from trading with them freely.

Then what was that 'because to do otherwise would be to dictate what kind of government they should have' all about, then?

If it's a serious violation, why wouldn't they?

I don't know. Do they accept suits from foreign nationals about what happens in foreign countries? For example, can people file a suit because of their treatment in Guantanamo Bay? Do they accept suits against the military? Do they accept suits against policies that are claimed to be done for the security of the free world?

And if they don't, surely in the country they're doing it in there's a similar system to redress grievances.

Well, that obviously won't work. You can't complain to the government against something they have no knowledge of or jurisdiction over.

 

[shanek]

No, it hasn't

Then who's going to enforce the mandate?

Are you claiming that the free market can't provide these?

The free market can provide them, but it can't mandate them, which is required by this document.

All things the free market provides best, according to you.

Yes, but again, it can't mandate them.

Public education that is not offered by the government, as you have always maintained is possible.

Not when it's compulsory.

No, and I won't. I also don't see the harm in sending children to school. It is not that they can be trusted to make the right decision about their education anyway.

What about their parents?

None of these rights do.

Yes, they do. They require people to give up their property for these purposes. They require other people to give up their money to pay for them. They require police to enforce them, courts to issue judgements against them, etc. That is exactly what they do.

They only make people entitled to things, not that these things must be taken away from others.

Entitle, according to American Heritage, means, "To furnish with a right or claim to something." That something is the property of others. The only other possibility is that the thing is the person's own property, in which case the idea of entitlement is moot. So, yes, an entitlement necessitates taking property from others.

If they can be provided by people voluntarily giving them, there is no problem.

But then they're not entitled to them. Black's Law defines "entitlement" as the "right to benefits, income or property which may not be abridged without due process." If they're entitled to it, they have full rights to it, and no one, not even the property owner, may abridge it without due process. Surely you see the conflict this attitude generates.

Iraq was invaded by the UN because Saddam Hussein didn't ratify the Human Rights Declaration?

No; Iraq was invaded by the UN because he (purportedly) didn't follow UN Resolution 1441. This has just as much of an effect on Iraq as other Resolutions, including this one, do. He (purportedly) didn't follow it, so he was invaded.

(And, of course, as it turns out he did comply with it after all, so fat lot of good it did him.)

They are all dedicated to the Constitution, or so they say.

Oh? The ones who voted down Ron Paul's requirement that all bills contain a reference to the clause in the Constitution that gives them the power to do what the bill requires are dedicated to the Constitution? The ones who objected to that requirement saying that if they did that they couldn't pass half the laws they do now are dedicated to the Constitution? President Bush, who commented that an education bill in front of him was certainly unconstitutional but signed it anyway, is dedicated to the Constitution? All of the Senators who said the Real ID legislation was unconstitutional but voted for it anyway (all Senators voted for it, 100-0) are dedicated to the Constitution?

How do you measure 'dedication to the Constitution'.

How about, the more unconstitutional bills you vote for, the less dedicated you are?

Ron Paul is dedicated to the Constitution. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any of the other 534 clowns who are.

Will any interpretation other than the Libertarian one be educated?

Whomever educates it can provide whatever interpretation they want.

Who is going to finance this 'education'?

Whoever wants to.

Then what was that 'because to do otherwise would be to dictate what kind of government they should have' all about, then?

I was talking about the acts of governments, not individuals. You clarified to say you were talking about individuals. That's where the discrepancy came from.

I don't know. Do they accept suits from foreign nationals about what happens in foreign countries?

Yes; the judicial branch has their power extended to "Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party." Article III Section 2 Clause 1.

For example, can people file a suit because of their treatment in Guantanamo Bay?

Yes. In fact, there is just such a suit underway now.

http://www.kashar.net/complete.asp?id=1076

Do they accept suits against the military?

Yes; judicial branch jurisdiction extends to "all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction" (same clause as above).

Do they accept suits against policies that are claimed to be done for the security of the free world?

It doesn't matter what the policies are claimed to be for. They just have to be "Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party."

Well, that obviously won't work. You can't complain to the government against something they have no knowledge of or jurisdiction over.

If something's happening in their country, they have jurisdiction over it. If you bring it to their attention, they have knowledge of it.