(Close Window)
Topic: The US Constitution and war
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 15, 2018 09:05AM)
James Madison:

"Every just view that can be taken of this subject, admonishes the public, of the necessity of a rigid adherence to the simple, the received and the fundamental doctrine of the constitution, that the power to declare war including the power of judging of the causes of war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature: that the executive has no right, in any case to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war: that the right of convening and informing Congress, whenever such a question seems to call for a decision, is all the right which the constitution has deemed requisite or proper: and that for such more than for any other contingency, this right was specially given to the executive.

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture of heterogeneous powers: the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man: not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war a physical force is to be created, and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions, and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace."

Discuss?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 15, 2018 10:52AM)
You're kidding.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 15, 2018 12:21PM)
Since the constitution is so old, and the Founders could never have envisioned such theatres as we know today and how fast we must react on a much greater scale maybe we should rethink that and put the power all in one place. Let the President alone decide about it. I mean since you want to rethink parts of the document based on that what is wrong with doing it across the board? I just want some consistency.

And I am not serous but pointing out hypocrisy is all.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 15, 2018 01:01PM)
[quote]On Apr 15, 2018, landmark wrote:
James Madison:

"Every just view that can be taken of this subject, admonishes the public, of the necessity of a rigid adherence to the simple, the received and the fundamental doctrine of the constitution, that the power to declare war including the power of judging of the causes of war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature: that the executive has no right, in any case to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war: that the right of convening and informing Congress, whenever such a question seems to call for a decision, is all the right which the constitution has deemed requisite or proper: and that for such more than for any other contingency, this right was specially given to the executive.

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture of heterogeneous powers: the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man: not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war a physical force is to be created, and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions, and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and dutyj of peace."

Discuss? [/quote]
I agree.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 15, 2018 04:22PM)
[quote]On Apr 15, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote:
Since the constitution is so old, and the Founders could never have envisioned...And I am not serious but pointing out hypocrisy is all. [/quote]

Not bad.

FWIW, I am not one of those who seeks to amend the 2nd Amendment.

I was pretty surprised at the sophistication of the arguments in that second paragraph of Madison's. It could have applied to the executives of most any country of the last fifty years. It really spells out the most important reasons why it's so important for the war power to reside in Congress's hands. They are reasons not often mentioned these days.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 15, 2018 04:40PM)
Congress gave the power away long ago and it is a sad thing. Separation of powers left te barn long ago and is not coming back any time soon.

But my point stands. You can not claim the document is old and not relevant only when convenient.
Message: Posted by: Dick Oslund (Apr 15, 2018 04:50PM)
I'm rather (!!!) conservative and, I agree with Danny.

Oh!I also support the second amendment.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 15, 2018 06:21PM)
The document is a contact of sorts. I mean how can we DEMAND certain things based on the contract and just toss out others at our whim?

No. If it is to mean anything it has to in it's entirety. Otherwise why have it at all?

What has happened is in a lustful grab for power the branches are giving up power to other branches in an attempt to consolidate power along party lines. Party is more important than branch of government. This is why the Judicial branch is so hotly contested by both sides.

But as sheeple nobody seems to care just so their team wins or they can act superior and arrogant and call names. Overlook it hoping your team is always in power is the way people seem to live now. For their part they just keep both sides diverted with stupid wedge issues that are NEVER solved. Ever wonder why bridges and roads never seem to be built? No matter how many promise to do so. If someone starts to catch on just scream "global warming" or"abortion" or now "gun control" and the marks being wised up stop instantly to argue. In reality it is not unlike Pavlov's Dog is it?

It is really sad to see.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 15, 2018 07:29PM)
Citation: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-15-02-0070

There's a notion called "Severability" .

Maybe something about national interests defining defensible territories?
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Apr 16, 2018 11:08AM)
I think it should be noted there is a difference between "war" and a "conflict", or a responsive action being taken in a situation. War, as the saying goes does take an Act of Congress. Perhaps that's why the term "conflict" came about in the first place.

Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 16, 2018 08:32PM)
[quote] Perhaps that's why the term "conflict" came about in the first place.
[/quote]
To bypass the Constitution so that the executive could murder people without consulting Congress?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 16, 2018 08:34PM)
[quote]On Apr 16, 2018, landmark wrote:
[quote] Perhaps that's why the term "conflict" came about in the first place.
[/quote]
To bypass the Constitution so that the executive could murder people without consulting Congress? [/quote]
Fastest route and straight line and all that.

It does simplify the process you have to admit.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Apr 17, 2018 09:55AM)
But then again there is that issue of children and women being murdered by chemicals. One of the burdens of being a Super Power is standing up for those who can not. For example what would you do if you saw a child say two or three years of age being murdered? There are only two options, turn and just go on your way...mind your own business, or help to stop it. The choice will always be yours. If people do nothing then these things will continue.

Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Apr 17, 2018 10:05AM)
Now there is always that chance of abuse but in this case there was ample warning of future action if more chemicals were used. I will also tell you this much, since the Democrats have even complained that this was not a strike that will prevent further attacks, should there be any more attacks on their people I believe the response from America and Allies will be severe...very very sever. Assad needs to think very carefully. Hopefully all will work out.

Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 17, 2018 10:12AM)
It is not a binary choice. Plus your analogy is way flawed. Because would you murder thousands of others because of it? Would toy send other people's children to die to save the child?

It is also not our job to be the policeman of the world. No that is not a burden of being a super power. Too often the question asked is "can we act?" as opposed to "should we act?".

There is s lot of room between doing nothing and acting, and even one one decides to act their are different actions to take. The choice is far from binary.

I probably just saved Jack an entire post.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 17, 2018 10:14AM)
And I'm not against or for any action specifically. I'm talking principal.
Message: Posted by: greerj (Apr 17, 2018 10:28AM)
I'm a little confused. If Assad kills thousands of people with conventional weapons we protest? But if he uses chemical weapons we draw the line and bomb? Is that how it works?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 17, 2018 10:31AM)
Apparently. Because conventional weapons hurt less.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Apr 17, 2018 10:45AM)
Its not flawed at all. To the US there are children being murdered. The US decided to act. Not killing thousands in fact acting at a time when targets were empty of workers. In fact I believe no one was killed in this action. I can't say this will be the case if future action is taken. Doing nothing is a choice. The sad reality is in either case people can be killed. If nothing is done people will be killed. I do have a question. When you have a dictator who gases his own people what exactly do you say to him to stop it? Keep in mind the longer you give him the more people die. What do you say to him.

Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 17, 2018 10:51AM)
Why do we not stop every dictator killing people?

And with all due respect why are children the line? Innocent adults are no less victims. Why only children deserve the action?

If you are taking the position that somehow we are the moral police of the world then I strongly disagree.

You blow off the entire discussion with "the US decided to act". This is the bone of contention. You can't just throw it out there as a forgone conclusion.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Apr 17, 2018 10:57AM)
As far as the civil war going on there goes the US is not involved in that. Assad has won that. The US has made it clear there is no intent to change that. It appears Assad is simply now doing population control to possibly keep control of the opposition. The use of chemicals is the easiest way of doing this and with an added bonus of plausible deniability.

Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 17, 2018 06:23PM)
[quote]
I probably just saved Jack an entire post.[/quote]

LOL. Actually I have plenty more to say about it, but I'll just leave it be.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 17, 2018 07:42PM)
On this occasion I think we agree more than you suspect. Albeit for different reasons probably.