Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Flint

I'm not talking about established military outposts, I'm talking about having our whole damn military stationed over there...indefinitely (???)

There's been a long list of bullshit reasons to be in Iraq, each one has been thoroughly shot down, only to be replaced by a more ridiculous flim-flam reason. At this point, we're down to pure idealistic fantasies. Yet, a good, valid reason is staring us right in the face...

Why has not one person had the balls to say we're there to be close to the oil our economy depends on?

Hey, I don't think we should be there either, Iraq that is.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I am not lying, and I'm clearly a better Constitutional scholar than you are -- you're wrong on at least five of your six points and you've proved a total of none. Permit me to serve you notice that I am not buying your fantasy, nor your misanalysis. You seem to be confusing your "should-bes" with what is actually written in the Constitution, which is hardly an approach you can sustain.

If I can't persuade a rock, I can make him a laughingstock. Would you like to become a laughingstock with all six of your points destroyed by merely quoting the relevant text of the Constitution at you?

1. The language of Article I, Section 8-11 through 8-16 detail what the legislative branch ought to do in military matters. The only defensive thing even implicit is calling out the militia in the cases of invasion and insurrection. Nowhere in the Section is there any declaration of the military being defensive solely, in the sense you seem to mean. The Constitution isn't trying to restrict us in dealings with foreign powers that may go badly sour, you'll note.

2. Those same sections of Article I specifically mention Congress having the power to declare a state of war, and DO NOT restrict the Executive Branch in the person of the Commander in Chief from sending in troops -- also advisedly, and in considerable measure this was NOT an oversight. Historical precedent as well as legal precedent is firmly against you here, no matter how quixotically you may rail about it: the United States has been in about 150 shooting conflicts of various scopes, with its first not-declared conflict being the Quasi-War of 1798-99, and Congress declared a state of war in but five of these. The proof, I think, all runs to disprove you.

3. Where you're getting this one from I have NO idea, and don't think there's a real idea to have. That is where you run into difficulty trying to explain it. Perhaps you're looking among your should-bes for a rule against doing anything of the sort, and there isn't one.

4. Well, here you're not being Constitutional, but rambling over into foreign-policy desiderata. Reduction of antilibertarian regimes does not, it appears, fit into your notion of libertarianism (which I find inconceivable for reasons I've made clear elsewhere) but here's a hint to something a bit more real, offered gratis: absolutist isolationism works only in the complete absence of foreign states, and is not sustainable in a global economy anyway, but only in a much-reduced feudal one.

5. Here you have the possiblity of being right, and in any case I'd have to table it until I fully understand the Act and judiciary findings on it, as well as other analysis. If you'd like to show me some material you found persuasive, I'd be glad to give it a look.

6. Is as defective as the first four, for the same reasons as the first four.

I take the moral and the intellectual high ground from you: I can defeat you because my moral and intellectual high ground are better than yours. I stand ready to demonstrate this as many times as the Cellar can stand. If you boast, boast sweetly, in case you later need to eat your words.

In spite of some protestations, nobody here's really saying it would be wrong for freedom to defeat unfreedom however comprehensively this needs to be done: all I'm stating is some slavemongers can be converted, while others need to be shot. There really just isn't a way for freedom to be in the wrong killing unfreedom. But I'm not going to sit here and tell you there shouldn't be a limit to bloodthirstiness. You do however have to recognize that slavemongers often start out bloodthirsty and don't improve. A prudent understanding of damage control, at the very least, dictates shooting back at such in preference to running away and taking your promise of liberty with you.

You're telling me, several times in one post and phrased in various ways, that you don't have much of an appetite for global liberty, global libertariansm, or for that matter the global prosperity those two things would facilitate. Well, I recommend you get out of the way, Paul, insofar as you can't lead and won't follow. Let those with my kind of appetite for these things get them done.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, before I descend the escalier that is so full of the proverbial esprit -- don't slip on any esprit, it's a bumpy road to the bottom:

The center of our moral argument is whether it is more moral to leave totalitarians anywhere to continue their misrule and abuses unmolested, or whether it is more moral to take up arms against those troubles, "and by opposing, end them." Radar takes the former position, I the latter.

If there ever was a really moral totalitarian, I have yet to hear of him. I have heard of totalitarians or tyrants who weren't motivated to abuse whole population groups, but I'm here to tell you this cannot be trusted and history tells us that. Being carefully evenhanded in the abuses and oppressions one dishes out isn't an improvement over assaulting just one out-group.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Hey, I don't think we should be there either, Iraq that is.

There may be some valid reason for us to be there. I'd like to think that there is, and I can imagine what it might be. But, the stated reasons (various and ever-shanging) weren't capable of sustaining political support. That is why we were doomed to failure from the beginning. Every one of our enemies knows that our lack of political will is the key to defeating us. How come we haven't figured that out yet? We can't afford to rush into stupid wars for half-cocked reasons. People aren't going to support that. It's a waste of resources.

If we have some tangible reason for going to war, then, like it or not, in a Democracy you have to say what that reason is, in order to get people to support you. The drawback to that may be "tipping our hand" to the enemy, but the alternative is starting un-winnable (un-finishable) wars.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I am not lying, and I'm clearly a better Constitutional scholar than you are

You clearly are better at smoking crack. I know more about the U.S. Constitution than you and every member of the Supreme Court combined.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

you're wrong on at least five of your six points and you've proved a total of none.

False. I've never been wrong on a single point, and I've proven each and every single thing I've said beyond a speck of doubt.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Permit me to serve you notice that I am not buying your fantasy, nor your misanalysis. You seem to be confusing your "should-bes" with what is actually written in the Constitution, which is hardly an approach you can sustain.

I've never said anything about the Constitution that was opinion or "translation". I've discussed what the Constitution ACTUALLY says in its original context.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

If I can't persuade a rock, I can make him a laughingstock.

You do every time you post anything.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Would you like to become a laughingstock with all six of your points destroyed by merely quoting the relevant text of the Constitution at you?

Good luck.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

1. The language of Article I, Section 8-11 through 8-16 detail what the legislative branch ought to do in military matters. The only defensive thing even implicit is calling out the militia in the cases of invasion and insurrection. Nowhere in the Section is there any declaration of the military being defensive solely, in the sense you seem to mean. The Constitution isn't trying to restrict us in dealings with foreign powers that may go badly sour, you'll note.

Wrong. Article 1, Section 8 details what congress is allowed to do, not what it "should" do. It describes the duties and responsibilities of Congress. The words "Common Defense" describe the role and intent of our military. These words appear twice in the Constitution. Once right in the preamble describing the purpose of having the American government and again in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, describing why Congress is being granted these limited powers. Notice it doesn't say "Common Offense" or "Common Empire Builiding" or "Common Democracy Spreading".

Strike 1.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

2. Those same sections of Article I specifically mention Congress having the power to declare a state of war, and DO NOT restrict the Executive Branch in the person of the Commander in Chief from sending in troops -- also advisedly, and in considerable measure this was NOT an oversight. Historical precedent as well as legal precedent is firmly against you here, no matter how quixotically you may rail about it: the United States has been in about 150 shooting conflicts of various scopes, with its first not-declared conflict being the Quasi-War of 1798-99, and Congress declared a state of war in but five of these. The proof, I think, all runs to disprove you.

Article 1, Section 8 Grants CONGRESS the power to DECLARE war when fulfilling Clause 1's requirement that it be to provide for the common defense. Congress alone has war making powers, and then only when in America's DEFENSE, and then only when a formal declaration of war is made. The President is NOT the Commander-In-Chief until he is called upon to be so through a formal declaration of war. Article 2, describes the limited powers of the President and nowhere is the president granted the authority to send a single troop into battle for a single day unless he is called upon to be the commander-in-chief by a formal declaration of war made by Congress.

Any times the president has sent a soldier into war without a formal declaration of war from Congress, he was violating the Constitution.

Strike 2, you're wrong again.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

3. Where you're getting this one from I have NO idea, and don't think there's a real idea to have. That is where you run into difficulty trying to explain it. Perhaps you're looking among your should-bes for a rule against doing anything of the sort, and there isn't one.

I don't talk about what "should be". I talk about what the Constitution actually says. The U.S. Constitution defines and limits the role and scope of every branch of the federal government. It also says that the U.S. Government may not do anything that isn't specifically enumerated as a power of the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. Congress has NO enumerated powers granted it the power to distribute its powers among the other branches, so doing so is unconstitutional.

Strike 3 - You're out. Wrong on all counts. I'll continue though because defeating you is so easy.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

4. Well, here you're not being Constitutional, but rambling over into foreign-policy desiderata. Reduction of antilibertarian regimes does not, it appears, fit into your notion of libertarianism (which I find inconceivable for reasons I've made clear elsewhere) but here's a hint to something a bit more real, offered gratis: absolutist isolationism works only in the complete absence of foreign states, and is not sustainable in a global economy anyway, but only in a much-reduced feudal one.

My positions are not isolationist. Non-military interventionism is not isolationism. The U.S. Constitution limits the role of the U.S. military as being used solely to DEFEND American soil or ships and for nothing else. It's not to overthrow "anti-libertarian regimes" or "spread democracy" or to "nation build", etc. My stance works in the real world, with a global economy.

Strike 4 - Wrong again. You can't seem to get anything right.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

5. Here you have the possiblity of being right, and in any case I'd have to table it until I fully understand the Act and judiciary findings on it, as well as other analysis. If you'd like to show me some material you found persuasive, I'd be glad to give it a look.

I have more than the possibility of being right, I have always been right when it comes to the Constitution and I'm right on this point too. Feel free to research Marbury vs. Madison. Especially the quote of John Marshall (the 3rd Chief of the Supreme Court) when he says "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution ARE null and void."

Strike 5 - You still have failed to prove me wrong on anything.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

6. Is as defective as the first four, for the same reasons as the first four.

Strike - 6. Once again, you have proven nothing and I've proven that all wars made without a formal declaration of war, which are made by the president, or which are not in the defense of America are unconstitutional and illegal.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I take the moral and the intellectual high ground from you: I can defeat you because my moral and intellectual high ground are better than yours. I stand ready to demonstrate this as many times as the Cellar can stand. If you boast, boast sweetly, in case you later need to eat your words.

I stand ready to eat my words on the day you can prove even one thing I've said to be wrong. Thus far you've failed and you've only proven your ignorance.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

In spite of some protestations, nobody here's really saying it would be wrong for freedom to defeat unfreedom however comprehensively this needs to be done: all I'm stating is some slavemongers can be converted, while others need to be shot. There really just isn't a way for freedom to be in the wrong killing unfreedom. But I'm not going to sit here and tell you there shouldn't be a limit to bloodthirstiness. You do however have to recognize that slavemongers often start out bloodthirsty and don't improve. A prudent understanding of damage control, at the very least, dictates shooting back at such in preference to running away and taking your promise of liberty with you.

You're telling me, several times in one post and phrased in various ways, that you don't have much of an appetite for global liberty, global libertariansm, or for that matter the global prosperity those two things would facilitate. Well, I recommend you get out of the way, Paul, insofar as you can't lead and won't follow. Let those with my kind of appetite for these things get them done.

Originally Posted by John Quincy Adams

America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
-John Quincy Adams

The American military is here to defend the freedom of Americans. It's not here to overthrow "unfreedom", or tyrants, or slavemongers, or bloodthirsty monsters in other countries. They have a duty and responsibility to do that for themselves.

I will not stand idly by and allow MY military to be misused to do these things. If you want to personally volunteer to go abroad to defend these people and help them shed the chains of those oppressing them, I say Kudos. Pack your bags and don't forget to take your appetite to kill those people with you. Just don't expect any help from America if you get arrested or killed.

America isn't the leader of the world, or the police of the world, or the defender of the world. America is only 1 country among hundreds and our authority ends at our own borders.

[richlevy]

Ok, that does it. Now that UG has joined Ann Coulter among the ranks of "Constitutional scholars" I think it's time for Constitutional scholars to come up with a new name for themselves.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

So Congress, and not the President declares (and by extension can end) wars. And yes, 'offenses against the Law of Nations' can be applied to half of the countries on the planet, even our own. But also notice that no war appropriation can be made for more than 2 years. Nowhere did they intend for the US to support a war for decades.

For all of you Cellarites with boats, you should lobby your Congressman for a Letter of Marque. This is basically the right to legalized piracy by seizing ships in retaliation for some action.

[Undertoad]

And now we need a law dictionary to determine the meaning of the word "war".

[xoxoxoBruce]

War = Hell.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Ok, that does it. Now that UG has joined Ann Coulter among the ranks of "Constitutional scholars" I think it's time for Constitutional scholars to come up with a new name for themselves.

So Congress, and not the President declares (and by extension can end) wars. And yes, 'offenses against the Law of Nations' can be applied to half of the countries on the planet, even our own. But also notice that no war appropriation can be made for more than 2 years. Nowhere did they intend for the US to support a war for decades.

For all of you Cellarites with boats, you should lobby your Congressman for a Letter of Marque. This is basically the right to legalized piracy by seizing ships in retaliation for some action.

The term "laws of nations" refers to international law or maritime law.

Letters of marque and reprisal were UG's wet dream. It was what would have been the correct and proper response to the 9/11 bombings because it's a way of making war without really making war. It gives immunity to anyone who chooses to kill pirates (or other private groups who attack Americans or our ships) and allows them to keep any spoils of war they get. They don't use any government money or protection. They put together their own private militia, and invade another country or kill those who were named in the letter, and take whatever possessions or treasure they can get, without any fear of retaliation on the part of America, and as long as they can get back to America, they will be protected by the American government. So in a way, you're right. It's sort of like a green light to be a pirate as long as your victims are named in the letter of marque made by the government.

I also agree that when morons like UG or Ann Coulter refer to themselves as Constitutional scholars, it cheapens the term for those of us who truly are.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And now we need a law dictionary to determine the meaning of the word "war".

War is any government directed use of military personnel to take up arms against people of another nation, especially when it means sending them into another nation. Any time an American soldier is orders to carry a gun into another country or to kill someone, it's war.

[Undertoad]

That's your definition, but what is the operative definition?

[Radar]

That's the definition that makes any sense so it's the only valid one. Sending soldiers to kill = war.

[Undertoad]

Do you maybe want to edit your defense of the definition to include some logic or reasoning?

[Radar]

The logic is self-evident and undeniable. Soldiers killing people = war. When government sends soldiers to kill, we are in a war. End of story.

[Undertoad]

So if they're sent to defend something, and somebody takes a potshot at them and they return fire, it's WAR?