Miami soldier resists: 'This war is evil'
 

Posted on Tue, Mar. 16, 2004



Miami soldier resists: 'This war is evil'
A Florida National Guard soldier from Miami who served six months in Iraq refuses to return and seeks conscientious objector status.
BY FRANK DAVIES
fdavies@herald.com

SHERBORN, Mass. - A Miami soldier who served six months in Iraq and then refused to return after a leave said Monday ''I can no longer be an instrument of violence,'' and turned himself in to military authorities.

Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia, a National Guard infantryman for five years after three years of active Army duty, explained his decision to seek conscientious objector status at an event organized by peace activists.

''I am not against the military. The military has been my family,'' said Mejia, 28. ``My commanders are not evil but this war is evil. I did not sign up for the military to go halfway around the world to be an instrument of oppression.''

Then, joined by family, supporters and his lawyers, he walked to the gates of Hanscom Air Force Base outside Boston. Activists cheered him as heavily armed soldiers took Mejia inside.

Although he surrendered in Massachusetts, ''the military honored my integrity,'' Mejia said, allowing him to return to his unit.

Mejia arrived at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport just after 10 p.m. Monday and was immediately surrounded by several reporters and photojournalists.

Asked about his decision not to return to Iraq, Mejia responded ``I don't think we're fighting terror in Iraq. I think we're fighting for oil.''

Flanked by his mother and aunt, Mejia said he would turn himself in to his unit in North Miami, Charlie Company of the 124th Battalion, at 10 a.m. today.

Monday night, his plans were simple: `I'm just going to take a hot shower, get some dinner.''

A spokesman for the Florida National Guard, Lt. Co. Ron Tittle, said late Monday no decision had been made yet whether to charge Mejia.

''We're glad he turned himself in,'' Tittle said, adding that Army officials at Fort Stewart, Ga., and the Pentagon would decide how to handle the case.

Mejia, who grew up in Nicaragua, moved to Miami as a teenager with his mother, Maritza Castillo, and became a permanent resident.

He was studying psychology at the University of Miami.

Both parents strongly oppose the Iraq war. His father, Carlos Mejia Godoy, is a prominent songwriter, performer and activist in Managua. He was a cultural ambassador for the Sandinista government who denounced U.S. intervention in Nicaragua.

''I did not want him to go to Iraq,'' Castillo said. ``But this is his decision today, his conscience.''

The soldier's lawyers, Louis Font and Tod Ensign, said Mejia could be a ''test case'' of Iraqi war policy, because they know of no other resisters who served in Iraq, refused to return and then turned themselves in. Font will seek an administrative discharge for Mejia, based on his applying for conscientious objector status.

Font said he was relieved the Army decided against pre-trial confinement for Mejia while officials study the case.

Mejia said his decision was ''a very personal one,'' after experiencing six months of guerrilla warfare in the Sunni triangle of Iraq, where resistance to U.S. occupation has been the most fierce.

He recalled several ambushes in which other soldiers were wounded, the ''bad guys'' got away and ''innocent Iraqis'' were killed in crossfires.

''At the time, you are doing your job and you go with the flow,'' Mejia said. ``But you see people dying every day. I can't tell you there was one day I woke up and said I am against the war.''

''I don't think it is a moral war,'' he added later.

During a two-week leave in October, Mejia decided not to return to Iraq.

In the next few months he spent most of his time in New York, ''living like a criminal,'' wondering if military police would come for him.

Surrounded by peace activists, Mejia explained how he reached his decision after serving eight years in the military:

``I signed up because I wanted to be part of this nation, and the military was at the very heart of the United States. I was very young (19), and was just starting to form my identity, values and principles.''

Mejia also criticized the Iraq invasion as ``a war for oil, based on lies -- lies about weapons of mass destruction, and connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.''

This week marks the first anniversary of the start of the war, and Mejia's news conference was one of several events clearly designed for political impact.

Mejia was joined by Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, who said the soldier's ''courageous stand'' was in the tradition of St. Francis of Assisi.

A group called Military Families Speak Out, which opposes the war and claims 1,300 participants, helped organize the event and staged vigils Monday outside the White House and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where hundreds of those wounded in Iraq have been treated.

Herald staff writers Phil Long, Elaine de Valle and Hannah Sampson and researcher Elisabeth Donovan contributed to this report.

At least he turned himself in ...
WTF did the guy think he was going to be doing in the Army? Building levees? Teaching math? Other crap that 's part of the advertising campaign? It's the ARMY.

''I don't think it is a moral war,'' he added later."

He should know that from the beginning.

" This week marks the first anniversary of the start of the war, and Mejia's news conference was one of several events clearly designed for political impact."

Just in proper time. :D

Before, "In the next few months he spent most of his time in New York, ''living like a criminal,'' wondering if military police would come for him.":D

He didn't want "to be an instrument of oppression", but now he is an instrument of political games.

He thought that if he ended up in a war, it would be one that he felt was justified.

A soldier has the right to not act on commands s/he believes are immoral. This guy is 100% okay in his action.

why he's been ''living like a criminal'' for few month? What for ?

I saw this guy being interviewed and came away with the impression that he just plain didn't want to go back, then after a bit of hiding out came up with the whole "immoral war" crap.

I may or may not agree with the war, and I may or may not advise people to join the military for different reasons, but this dickwad was a volunteer, and took an oath.

He may find out very soon that Iraq is not so bad compared to military prison.

The time to say what he said was while he was over there, with his unit, doing his job.

Waiting until he got home, and was late in reporting back indicates that he just didnt want to go back (didn't like the food, hated his bunkmates, was afraid of getting his ass shot off) and was looking for an excuse.

Maybe he thought he would be DEFENDING America rather than violating the Constitution (which also violates his oath) and attacking non-threatening countries that never attacked us.

I think you should all take note that he was in the service for 8 years and was staff seargant. He knew all about the military and wasn't some kid who was afraid to fight. He just wanted to fight on the side of the good guys and in this case he wasn't.

I agree. I would have refused to go in the first place, but maybe he believed Bush until he got there and saw for himself we had no place in Iraq.

Here Here! I couldn't agree more.

I don't think they mean he's been committing armed robbery. I think they mean he's been living like a fugative because he was AWOL.

Yes, he did take an oath and by going to Iraq he would be violating that oath. Every soldier in Iraq is violating their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. At least this guy is honoring his oath unlike those people.

His "job" is DEFENDING American soil from attack, not invading non-threatening sovereign nations that have never harmed us and overthrowing the leadership of nations our president doesn't like. And I think his timing was pretty good. He needs to get the word out there that this war is wrong and not everyone taking part in it thinks its a good idea.

In the article I read somewhere else (I think maybe CNN), things were phrased much differently and many fewer quotes from him were in there. It made it sound like he was doing just dandy, fighting and doing his job, when a single incident occurred where lots of civilians and children got shot and that messed him up in the head such that he couldn't handle going back again.

Clearly from his quotes that's not what happened at all. I hate the media.

A soldier/sailor/marine/whatever does not have the right to igonore an order.

What he does have is the option of doing is following up with command after the fact. His unwillingness to act may cause a loss of life. He is generally not in possession of enough information to make that decision.

In this case, he is still breaking the UCMJ, but at least it wasn't in combat.

Edit: friggin' typos

A soldier DOES have the right to refuse a direct order if that order is unlawful. And given that the Constitution is the highest law of the land (higher than the UCMJ) they are not required to follow an unconstitutional order.

He's doing what he thinks is right. I'm ok with it because and only because he is stepping up to accept the consequences of his actions.

I admire his principled stance and his courage. This is no fresh-outta boot camp, wet-behind-the-ears private who misses his mommy but an experienced soldier who has other soldiers under his command. I have little choice but to respect that and give him the benefit of the doubt. The facts will come out and his fate will be determined fairly.

As long as he served with honor while in uniform, then I don't have a big problem with any of this.

No one who has joined the military in the modern era does so with the expectation of standing and fighting on American soil. We haven't had to defend our soil from foreign invaders since 1812 (not counting a few pacific islands and towns in west Texas).

I know you're a little bit nuts, so I'm kinda scared to even ask, but how exactly does following an order given by a sitting president, authorized by congress, unimpeeded by judicial review, result in a violation of the constitution?

-sm

Defending America from a direct attack is the only valid use of the US military. Anything other than defending American soil or ships from attack is a violation fo the Constitution.

I'm not "nuts" in the slightest and I've never been wrong about the Constitution. It's funny that a mental midget like you would call me nuts though.

First off let's go to your "authorized by congress" claim. The Constitution says ONLY CONGRESS may declare war and even then only in the DEFENSE of America. Congress MAY NOT grant authority to the president to declare war or start wars. The war powers act is absolutely unconstitutional in its face and according to Marbury vs. Madison doesn't require judicial review to be disregarded.

Congress did not declare war. In fact when Congressman Ron Paul of Texas suggested we declare war after we launched our unprovoked and unconstitutional attack against Iraq, he was met with hostility.

The Constitution also defines our military solely for the defense of American soil and ships and for nothing else. That means STARTING wars against countries that have never attacked us and who pose no immediate danger (Iraq posed no danger) is unconstitutional. So are overthrowing the leadership of nations the president doesn't care for, humanitarian aid missions, training the military of other nations, stationing our troops around the world during times of peace in an imperialistic show of force, etc.

When any government employee is hired, they take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. I think their oath should require them to read it first (the supreme court, congress, and the president clearly haven't).

Anyone who has taken that oath would be prevented from following an order to invade Iraq because...

1. The President has no Constitutional war making powers.
2. Congress may not grant war making powers to the President with anything other than a Constitutional amendment
3. Congress did not declare war.
4. Congress was prevented from declaring war because America was not in immediate danger and Iraq posed no threat.
5. The U.S. Military has no authority beyond our own borders and an order to use our DEFENSIVE military is a violation of the Constitution.

If someone did follow an unconstitutional order to invade Iraq from a sitting president (which is no different than if the president told them to shoot a bunch of school children), both the president and the soldier would be domestic enemies of the Constitution and both would have violated their oaths. In fact a good case could be made to brand them as traitors.

I know you're not the brightest bulb on the tree, but read it a few times so you can keep up.

To start, it wasn't a "war". I know we all called it, that but I did not hear the call for fuel rationing, nor for a draft, and it took less than 0.1% of our resources to flick a few JDAMs at Baath party offices until they hid in holes, and we don't intend to take their territory or their resources. Do you have the correct definition for "war"?

Yes, and Vietnam wasn't a war either. I've got news for you, when the American government sends our military to shoot people in another country it's a war regardless of what the government calls it.

I read on your bio that it says that you are an award winning libetarian and a constitutional scholar. What awards and how did you come about your scholarly status?

ad hominum sirrah? One would consider such an attack unprofessional from a self-professed scholar.

Citation please.

Citation please. Also, starting war has nothing to do with the enumerated powers directly


According to whom?

How exeactly does M v M apply?


Citation please.

Are we going to have a case "Utah Woman 2: The Constitution Chronicles" here?

I guess what Radar is saying is that if China invaded Canada, began slaughtering all its citizens, marshalling its natural resources and lining up troops and equipment along our nothern border that we'd all have to sit around with our thumb up our ass untill one of them actually stepped into our yard.

If the world worked like that, Radar, we'd all be speaking German or Russian and there would be no America having been airburshed out of the history books.

Sometimes, you have to take the fight to the bully. I realize you don't agree with that but a strict application of the Radar doctrine would result in our demise.

Additionally, using your logic, Japan could have bombed all of California into the sea and all we would have been allowed to do is shoot them down when they got close.

And, to be clear, I am not invoking this logic to defend our invasion of Iraq.

The Constitution makes no mention of how congress must use their power to declare war. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 states with the utmost simplicity that the power rests with congress "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"

The only place that it mentions usage is in terms of how Congress may use the Militia (Clause 15), which the framers differentiated from the Army and the Navy. This can be seen later, in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 where the President is called the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States"

It states that the Militia is to be used to "execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Even if we grant that this clause is meant to be constrictive and exhaustive, it is directed only toward the use of the Militia, and not toward the Army and the Navy.

I'm more than willing to take up the other issues, but lets make sure that we're on the same page to start with - the Constitution does not limit how Congress may use the armed forces.

Well, that's probably true. It would help me catch up if you could reference the specific parts of the Constitution that you're referring to when you make your arguments. That way we're talking about the same thing.

I've been a winnner of the Lights of Liberty Award from the Advocates for Self-government for several years. And I became a Constitutional scholar the same way all Constitutional scholars did. I studied. I have read volumes upon volumes of books and other information regarding the founders, the revolutionary war, natural law, etc. But even if all I had read was the Constitution itself, I'd know more about it than the vast majority of those in government including the Supreme Court, The President, and Cognress who routinely violate it.

It was in response to your ad hominum attack. If you want to sling mud, I can do it with the best of 'em.

Let's start with the phrase "common DEFENSE" which is located not only in the preamble but also in Article 1 Section 8 which lists the only 18 things that congress may take part in or legislate. Government is prohibited from taking part in or legislating anything not specifically enumerated so the vast majority of the federal government is unconstitutional but that's best left for another discussion.

Clause 1 of Article 1 section 8 describes what government may do and in this case we're talking about providing "common DEFENSE". The following clauses describe what government may do in order to accomplish what is listed in clause 1.

Clauses 10-13 of Article 1 Section 8 describe pertain to the military. It grants government the power to create a military (again for the purpose of providing a "common DEFENSE"), to punish pirates and other attacks against us on the ocean, to declare war, raise armies, and create a navy (again these powers are granted and limited to accomplishing the goals of Clause 1 which include "common DEFENSE" but not "starting unprovoked wars" which would require an OFFENSIVE military rather than a defensive one.)

Keep in mind the founders had risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor (many died in the process) to escape from imperialistic tyrrany and they specifically gave congress and NOT the president the power to make war because they didn't think any one person should be able to bring us to war and that only a large majority of a great number of men should be able to send men to die. They wanted the process of making war to be difficult.

Here are the clauses in question...

Article V describes the amendment process. Nothing may be changed in the Constitution other than through a Constitutional amendment. Article VI paragraph 2 also defines the Constitution as the highest law in the land which means it is above all others. Therefore if someone wanted to change the powers granted to any of the three branches of government as described in the Constitution, they would have to do it through an amendment. And yes, starting wars (in our defense) is directly related to the enumerated powers granted to congress.

According to the highest law in the land, the Constitution. If the Constitution says slavery is illegal (13th amendment) and you make an act of congress that says slavery is legal, it is unconstitutional in its face and doesn't require judicial review. The Constitution is above the Supreme Court and the decisions of the Supreme Court do not shape the Constitution or change it.

Marbury vs. Madison applies because the very first Supreme Court said if any laws, court decisions, act of congress, etc. are in direct contradiction to the Constitution, they are null and void and we are under no obligation to follow them. In other words if Congress makes an act granting war making powers to the president (contradictory to the contents of the Constitution) it is automatically null and void without judicial review and is unconstitutional.

I've cited it many times already. The U.S. Military is defined and described in the Constitution as being a DEFENSIVE one. The very definition of defense means one does not attack unless attacked. Starting wars against those who have not attacked and are not in the process of attacking you can not be considered defense by any stretch of the imagination.

That's up to you. You can accept the Constitution as it is written which defines and limits the U.S. military for the purpose of DEFENDING the ships and land of America or you can sit around and try to twist it to your own liking.

The simple truth is if the American government abided by the strict limitations on their powers within the Constitution, the entire world would be safer. The founders were against military interventionism.

I'm all for trading freely with all nations, but only defending our own. We should make non-aggression peace treaties with them, but none that include using our military to defend any nation but our own.

If we did this, we'd hardly find an enemy on earth but if someone did attack us, we'd be able to fight them off easily.

So Radar, everybody is a stupid ass and you are the only one who understands the constitution and knows how it must be read?
If I'm not wrong a president only can send troops to a foreign country for about 90 days (or something like that) and after that the congress has to aprove it? And all your congressmen, even those who are against this war, don't know the right meaning of the constitution?
And the constitution is "only" a piece of paper of a few hundred years age. Maybe the way to lead a country shouldn't be by the letter but by the sense the letter gives. And if "defending Amercia" means attack a dictator, so shall it be!

Btw I am and was against the war in Iraq.

Pietsch v. Bush (the first one)

Mahorner v. Bush (the first one)

Lowry v. Reagan

Baker v. Carr

Callan v. Bush (the second one)

The courts have made and confirmed the ruling that the decision to go to war is expressly held by the non-judicial branches of government, and is a political, not constitutional decision (using those terms technically here - see Justice Brennan's definition of "political decisions" in Baker v. Carr). They have refused to intervene on questions of constitutionality, defensive vs. offensive, proper declaration, and impropriety of the “War Powers” act.

Yet m v. m states that the court has the power (and the mandate) to intervene where a law is made that is, and I believe the term is "repugnant", to the constitution. They have not done so. They also hold the ability to review the actions of those acting as “Members of the State” – agents of a particular office, to declare their constitutionality. They have not done so. On the contrary (John Doe v. George W. Bush), they have refused to even review the cases.

You can state your opinions forcefully, and that's fine. But please acknowledge that they are opinions, and not constitutional mandates.

And, remember, there are some fairly sharp minds that hold opinions contrary to yours – and their opinions get published in fancy books with embossed titles, and studied by every law student in the country. Also, they wear fancy robes. That doesn’t always make them right. But it should give you pause.

-sm

Actually, being a stupid ass is currently necessary for Constitutional interpretation in Congress. There are tons of places where there are bizarre interpretations of the Constitution that are held only because of expediency and inertia. The most egregious is the commerce clause. If that clause was interpreted in a sane way, a huge amount of the Federal government would be unconstitutional. So they say that there is Federal jurisdiction over anything that could theoretically affect interstate commerce - ie, just about anything.

No, everybody isn't a stupid ass and I'm not the only one who understands the Constitution. It means exactly what it says; no more; no less and it doesn't require interpretation because it's not vague or ambiguous in any way. It's not written in a foreign language or coded. It doesn't need to be deciphered. There are hundreds of thousands of us, perhaps millions who accurately understand the Constitution without trying to "interpret" it.

The problem is government ignores the Constitution, oversteps their limited authority, and attacks our civil rights and the "regular joe" out there who was educated in government schools isn't taught that he is the master and government is the servant, isn't taught that the rights of an individual supercede the desires of millions, isn't told that rights don't come from government, etc. Average Joe is misled and confused and believes as long as he has microwave meals and television, he is free.

That's what the war powers act says, but as we've already established, that is an unconstitutional and illegal document. The president has absolutely no legitimate war making powers and can't send a single troop into a foreign country to fight for even 1 day without a declaration of war, which can only be made by Congress. Congress does not have the ability to send troops to foreign countries to fight either unless war is declared. And Congress doesn't have the legal authority to declare war unless America itself is in eminent danger.

Correct. The Constitution is a piece of paper and can't defend itself. It can't give us freedom. We must earn our freedom by upholding and defending the Constitution and demanding government abide by the limitations on their powers within the Constitution. It is the foundation of our entire country and without government abiding by it, we have no freedom at all.

And as far as it being old, it's fairly young in terms of how old most countries are. The principles behind the Constitution (limited governmental authority granted by the consent of the governed, armed population to defend against tyranny, military non-interventionism, etc) are timeless and will be fresh for as long as there are people in the world.

Defending anything means you don't attack without provocation. In other words you don't attack unless attacked or WE DON'T START WARS, WE FINISH THEM.

smoothmoniker: Case law is irrelevant. The Constitution is the highest law in the land. It's higher than all the courts including the supreme court. And a case doesn't have to be heard for a law to be unconstitutional.

The courts refuse to hear cases on the subject because they work for the government and it is in their interest to agree with government. They are on a short leash....their paychecks. I can cite dozens of unconstitutional court cases, but those don't change the Constitution.

We might as well have no law at all if the courts are going to perpetually use one unconstitutional decision as a precedent for another until our country implodes.

And what I said isn't a matter of opinion, it is a fact. The courts do have a mandate to hear these cases but are derelict in their duties and when they do hear a case, they often side with government because the Supreme Court has decided they may rule against the Constitution when it is in the "interest" of government even though they hold no legal authority to do so.

Radar this sounds a little bit strange to me...
If you are millions of good citizens why can't you vote your people to the congress to change the situation or have big meeting and call all the politicians liars an traitors?
And I don't understand why in all these years America could send troops in a country without anyone protesting against it and go to the court and get his rights. Are all the judges stupid or are there no honest judges in America? Have they all sold their soul to the devil or the government? And if so, why don't you take your weapons and start a big revolution against the government and all these people who violate the constitution? Man, you should kill for it. Because the constitution is the highest law in your country it should be defended till death!
I really don't know if the fathers of the constitution would think that everything you clame violating the constitution is wrong...
But I'm no American...

That's what the war powers act says, but as we've already established, that is an unconstitutional and illegal document.

You know, there's a group of people here in Texas who believe that, on a technicality (and my understanding is that the argument's entirely accurate and true), Texas never joined the Union and is in fact its own country.

You cannot discuss things with these people because they simply keep referring back to the documents in question--and the unwavering "facts" of what they say. Never do the words "I believe" enter into their conversations, they simply keep saying "it is" that way. But practical reality says they are wrong, no matter how right they are on paper.

To draw from the Utah Woman thread, the truth is YOU BELIEVE that people SHOULD have certain rights under what you call Natural Law--and your simply stating it as fact does not change the lives of the millions of people who do not have those rights in practicality. YOU BELIEVE that many current government actions are unconstitutional, and are free to challenge them, but at what point does the reality that they are happening, and will in all likelihood will continue to do so, have to be accepted?

These guys in Texas haven't accepted the reality around them yet, but I personally believe it is a fact that I am an American.

So, just to recap, the following things have no bearing when considering if something is constitutional:

The opinions of Congress.

The declarations of the President.

The case law of the Judiciary.

Any of the previous actions of Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court.

The "plain reading" of the document itself.

Sorry for calling you a little nuts earlier. That was out of line. I should have just let your arguments speak for themselves without the name calling.

-sm

It's not a matter of what I BELIEVE. It's a matter of fact. If you don't believe in gravity but step off the Grand Canyon, you'll still go splat. It is a natural law and is no less immutable than natural rights. Whether or not someone is being prevented from exercising thier rights is irrelevant, they still have them.

If I rob you and take your property, it doesn't mean you don't have the right to own property. If I lock you up in my basement, it doesn't mean you don't have the right to be free. If I kill you, it doesn't mean you don't have a right to live. It just means I have violated your rights. Rights don't go away when you vote on them, they can't be sold, traded, taken or given away.

Again, you keep taking facts and dressing them up as opinions. It's not a matter of me believing most of what our government takes part in is unconstitutional, it's a fact regardless of what I believe. I accept the fact that they are happening, but they are happening illegally because government is violating their limited authority.

Here's a question for you. At what point of government violating your rights, usurping power, and committing mass murder do you personally get off your ass and take up arms against the government? What exactly would motivate you to stand up for your natural rights? Would they have to kill your family because they think you've got guns like Randy Weaver? What would it take?

America is on the brink of totalitarianism and it's leaning over the edge. If we don't do something now to get rid of the Democrats and Republicans (and the irresponsible "something for nothing" attitude shared by many Americans), it will be impossible to avoid the harsh reality a bloody second American revolution.

NOTHING other than the Constitution itself has a bearing on whether or not something is Constitutional or Unconstitutional.

None of those have any bearing on whether or not something is Constitutional other than amending the Constitution (within the specific areas in which congress is given authority to legislate) but this does.

The plain reading of the Constitution without an attempt to "interpret" it or "determine original intent" will prove or disprove whether something is Constitutional. Some look for loopholes and try to argue over a particular word like "militia" to confuse people when the meaning of the entire document is clear.

No part of the Constitution limits our natural rights, but it does place severe and specific limits on the powers of government and which areas they hold authority to legislate over. The scope of government powers is very limited.

My arguments are intelligent, rational, articulate, historically accurate, factual, philosophically sound, reasonable, logical and cogent. I back up everything I say and If you take issue with any of my arguments, feel free to mention your objections so I can address each of them. I can discuss your concerns with you or we can just toss insults back and forth. It's up to you. In either case I'm on solid ground.

But radar, you do interpret the text.

You make clause 1 apply to the whole article. You import the phrase "common defence (sic)" into the rest of the clauses, and so limit what Congress may muster an Army of Navy to do. It's not the plain reading; it's an interpretation.

You might say that the plain meaning of the text puts that clause in force for the whole article. I might say that the plain meaning sets each clause as independent. In either case, we're both making an interpretation.

At that point, we’re off “plain text” and we need to make an argument for whose hermeneutic is more reasonable. And if we're bandying about interpretations, surely we should pay some heed to those who are professional interpreters of the text? the Judiciary?

-sm

Does this mean we can give them back their president?

Shit, they can have the whole state back...look at the Dwellars on here from Texas! ;)

Hey, they can't help being from TexAss.

Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn it into a fact.
-- Honore' de Balzac

Hey, they can't help being from TexAss.

Ah, you've been to Houston then I see. :)

I live in Austin, which you may be assured is an extremely beautiful and friendly place--the arrogance of the city notwithstanding.

Shit, they can have the whole state back...look at the Dwellars on here from Texas!

Who else?