GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-12-2012, 06:12   #126
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


I'm still waiting for anyone to point out what constitutional requirements for a declaration of war are not met by authorizations for the use of force. If they are good enough for James Madison, the father of the constitution, they are good enough for me.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 12:04   #127
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'm thinking he was in Elementary school when that briefing was given. What do you think?
You couldn't be more wrong but keep on assuming every Paul supporter is 19 years old if it makes you feel superior. Though it would be rather embarrassing to you if a 19 year old knows more about conservative history than you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'm still waiting for anyone to point out what constitutional requirements for a declaration of war are not met by authorizations for the use of force. If they are good enough for James Madison, the father of the constitution, they are good enough for me.
It was good enough for every war up until Korea, which includes the World Wars. The constitution says "declare war". Not "authorize use of force". Or "cede warmaking to the Executive". DECLARE WAR. And that's exactly what we did throughout our history. Hell, we "declared war" on OURSELVES in the Civil War. Maybe the reason is because every war starting with Korea have been imperialistic wars of aggression, not wars to defend this country from attackers. Which Koreans attacked America? Which Vietnamese attacked America? Which factions in Bosnia attacked America? Which Iraqis attacked America? Which Afghans attacked America? ad nauseum
__________________
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?"-Edward Bernays, grandfather of modern propaganda

Last edited by G19G20; 04-12-2012 at 12:11..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 17:44   #128
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
You couldn't be more wrong but keep on assuming every Paul supporter is 19 years old if it makes you feel superior. Though it would be rather embarrassing to you if a 19 year old knows more about conservative history than you do.
You're right, I probably should not assume. OK, then let me ask. How old are you? What professions have you worked in, and for how long?

Just to be fair, I am 44. Worked stacking hay in the summers and food service work in High School. Joined the military at 18. Pharmacy Tech my first 10 years, Physician Assistant my last 10. I traveled a little bit. Best I can recall, I lived in or visited 22 countries in 20 years. Still working as a Physician Assistant.

Quote:
It was good enough for every war up until Korea, which includes the World Wars. The constitution says "declare war". Not "authorize use of force". Or "cede warmaking to the Executive". DECLARE WAR. And that's exactly what we did throughout our history. Hell, we "declared war" on OURSELVES in the Civil War. Maybe the reason is because every war starting with Korea have been imperialistic wars of aggression, not wars to defend this country from attackers. Which Koreans attacked America? Which Vietnamese attacked America? Which factions in Bosnia attacked America? Which Iraqis attacked America? Which Afghans attacked America? ad nauseum

Nope, swing and a miss. They should really go back and see if they can reclaim a tiny percentage of the salary your History teachers made.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/82969.pdf

Quote:

Key Statutory Authorizations for the Use of Military Force
From the Administration of President John Adams to the present, there have
been various instances when legislation has been enacted authorizing the use of military force by the President instead of formally declaring war. In most cases such legislation has been preceded by a specific request by the President for such authority. During the Presidencies of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, these Chief Executives noted in messages to Congress that Congressional authorizations for use of force would be appropriate to enable the United States to protect its interests from
predatory actions by foreign powers, in particular attacks on U.S. commercial vessels and persons on the high seas by France and by Tripoli. Congress responded with specific authorizations for the use of force under the President’s direction in 1798 against France and in 1802 against Tripoli. In 1815 President James Madison
formally requested that Congress declare war against the Regency of Algiers in response to its attacks on U.S. citizens and commerce in the Mediterranean. Congress responded with an Act authorizing the President to utilize U.S. armed vessels to be used against Algerian naval attacks but did not declare war.

The random uninformed civilians highlighted in red, might have a little more insight into constitutional intent than either of us. One of them is commonly referred to as the "FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION". Do you know which one?

Oh, and most wars are aggressive. The term "war of aggression" is as redundant as it is a marker for people that don't understand much in the way of war.

Sheesh. Google something a little bit before you stick your foot into the mouth up to the knee the next time. It's embarrassing.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 04-12-2012 at 17:46..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 22:12   #129
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
What Legislative powers defined in the CotUS are unconstitutional for the Legislature to give Authorization for to the Executive?
juggy4711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 22:48   #130
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You're right, I probably should not assume. OK, then let me ask. How old are you? What professions have you worked in, and for how long?

Just to be fair, I am 44. Worked stacking hay in the summers and food service work in High School. Joined the military at 18. Pharmacy Tech my first 10 years, Physician Assistant my last 10. I traveled a little bit. Best I can recall, I lived in or visited 22 countries in 20 years. Still working as a Physician Assistant.
Im 36 and have always worked in IT, including federal and local government positions where I could see the politics, corruption and waste up close and personal. Yep, I'm jaded. Here's an interesting factoid. I used to work directly under the man that was eventually appointed as Obama's first Chief Information Officer. He was a slimy bastard and played politics perfectly. Taking credit for the successes of his employees and blaming his own failures on the same employees, whenever it suited his agenda. And look where he ended up. Yep, I'm jaded.


Quote:
Nope, swing and a miss. They should really go back and see if they can reclaim a tiny percentage of the salary your History teachers made.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/82969.pdf


The random uninformed civilians highlighted in red, might have a little more insight into constitutional intent than either of us. One of them is commonly referred to as the "FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION". Do you know which one?

Oh, and most wars are aggressive. The term "war of aggression" is as redundant as it is a marker for people that don't understand much in the way of war.

Sheesh. Google something a little bit before you stick your foot into the mouth up to the knee the next time. It's embarrassing.

No one is claiming that every individual military action or maneuver has to be a declared war. Here's the one GIANT difference that the report actually exposes if you're paying attention. The examples given in the gov't report that you are referring to are purely naval protection exercises. They don't involve invading a sovereign country with military troops! EVERY action that involved invading a sovereign country required a declaration of war and was declared accordingly. The Navy escorting ships in international waters isn't by itself a war and isn't invading a sovereign country. The trend you see with the report you posted is that every instance where US military made landfall on foreign land involved a Declaration of War, prior to Korea. The trend for historical "authorizations of use of force" were specifically naval exercises that involved no invasions of sovereign foreign nations. See the difference? We've completely abandoned Declarations of War even for invasions now though that was obviously the historical delineation. It's absurd to claim that every specific military operation or maneuver or protection mission requires a Declaration of War and I'm not claiming it does. Invading other countries does though and the history proves it. Invasions involve civilian loss of life, large military casualties, property destruction and other considerations that naval maneuvers do not and therefore require a much higher level of consideration by Congress and the People. Declarations of War were designed for these extra considerations.

Additionally, letters of Marque and Reprisal would have sufficed for those naval missions and I don't expect a State Dept report to actually explain that antiquated notion and to what extent they were used during those missions.

HOMERUN!

(Btw, Im curious why you changed the font, color and size of my previous post? Seems disingenuous.)
__________________
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?"-Edward Bernays, grandfather of modern propaganda

Last edited by G19G20; 04-13-2012 at 00:06..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2012, 09:11   #131
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Im 36 and have always worked in IT, including federal and local government positions where I could see the politics, corruption and waste up close and personal. Yep, I'm jaded. Here's an interesting factoid. I used to work directly under the man that was eventually appointed as Obama's first Chief Information Officer. He was a slimy bastard and played politics perfectly. Taking credit for the successes of his employees and blaming his own failures on the same employees, whenever it suited his agenda. And look where he ended up. Yep, I'm jaded.





No one is claiming that every individual military action or maneuver has to be a declared war. Here's the one GIANT difference that the report actually exposes if you're paying attention. The examples given in the gov't report that you are referring to are purely naval protection exercises. They don't involve invading a sovereign country with military troops! EVERY action that involved invading a sovereign country required a declaration of war and was declared accordingly. The Navy escorting ships in international waters isn't by itself a war and isn't invading a sovereign country. The trend you see with the report you posted is that every instance where US military made landfall on foreign land involved a Declaration of War, prior to Korea. The trend for historical "authorizations of use of force" were specifically naval exercises that involved no invasions of sovereign foreign nations. See the difference? We've completely abandoned Declarations of War even for invasions now though that was obviously the historical delineation. It's absurd to claim that every specific military operation or maneuver or protection mission requires a Declaration of War and I'm not claiming it does. Invading other countries does though and the history proves it. Invasions involve civilian loss of life, large military casualties, property destruction and other considerations that naval maneuvers do not and therefore require a much higher level of consideration by Congress and the People. Declarations of War were designed for these extra considerations.

Additionally, letters of Marque and Reprisal would have sufficed for those naval missions and I don't expect a State Dept report to actually explain that antiquated notion and to what extent they were used during those missions.

HOMERUN!

(Btw, Im curious why you changed the font, color and size of my previous post? Seems disingenuous.)
Where in the constitution does it draw distinction between naval and ground operations and the need for a formal declaration that says "we declare war on thee". I think you've imagined that.

A rose by any other name...
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2012, 11:35   #132
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Where in the constitution does it draw distinction between naval and ground operations and the need for a formal declaration that says "we declare war on thee". I think you've imagined that.

A rose by any other name...
There's a historical delineation that's clear and I laid it out in the last post. You used the examples of Adams and the other founders. Obviously they knew where the line was since they wrote the document. Im a big supporter of referring to the founder's writings and actions in interpreting constitutional intent. SCOTUS doesn't even do that anymore. Naval escorts and combat incidental to those escorts don't require declarations and that appears to be the founders intent. I would never argue that we should be declaring war against Somalia to escort ships against pirates who happen to be from Somalia. Land wars, however, require declarations and that's shown over and over in American history up until Korea.

For the record, Ron Paul introduced a bill issuing letters of Marque against the perpetrators of 9/11. Congress voted it down.

If there's any thing we should have learned it's that Declarations of War serve to unite the country behind a single war effort and there's nothing more powerful than the USA united behind a war effort. When Congress and the People don't consider Declarations, the wars don't have support and don't end. Want to win a war? Declare it. Want to lose it? Don't declare it. Check the history.
__________________
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?"-Edward Bernays, grandfather of modern propaganda

Last edited by G19G20; 04-13-2012 at 11:47..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2012, 21:22   #133
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Where in the constitution does it draw distinction between naval and ground operations and the need for a formal declaration that says "we declare war on thee". I think you've imagined that.

A rose by any other name...
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
There's a historical delineation that's clear and I laid it out in the last post. You used the examples of Adams and the other founders. Obviously they knew where the line was since they wrote the document. Im a big supporter of referring to the founder's writings and actions in interpreting constitutional intent...

For the record, Ron Paul introduced a bill issuing letters of Marque against the perpetrators of 9/11. Congress voted it down...Check the history.
juggy4711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2012, 21:43   #134
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Where in the constitution does it draw distinction between naval and ground operations and the need for a formal declaration that says "we declare war on thee". I think you've imagined that.

A rose by any other name...
The Founders did have it right, they did understand it better than anyone. So try to argue with this.

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." - Ben Franklin

"There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government" - Ben Franklin

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will be the end of the Republic." - Ben Franklin

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" -Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not" - Thomas Jefferson

An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens" - Thomas Jefferson.
juggy4711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2012, 06:28   #135
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
There's a historical delineation that's clear and I laid it out in the last post. You used the examples of Adams and the other founders. Obviously they knew where the line was since they wrote the document. Im a big supporter of referring to the founder's writings and actions in interpreting constitutional intent. SCOTUS doesn't even do that anymore. Naval escorts and combat incidental to those escorts don't require declarations and that appears to be the founders intent. I would never argue that we should be declaring war against Somalia to escort ships against pirates who happen to be from Somalia. Land wars, however, require declarations and that's shown over and over in American history up until Korea.

For the record, Ron Paul introduced a bill issuing letters of Marque against the perpetrators of 9/11. Congress voted it down.

If there's any thing we should have learned it's that Declarations of War serve to unite the country behind a single war effort and there's nothing more powerful than the USA united behind a war effort. When Congress and the People don't consider Declarations, the wars don't have support and don't end. Want to win a war? Declare it. Want to lose it? Don't declare it. Check the history.
Wait a minute. You aren't such a strict constitutionist after all. The bottom line, is there is no constitutional difference between the type of armed force used. That was a requirement imagined outside if the constitution. Also, a published document affirmed by the members of congress, allowing the CINC to commit acts of war, and even refrencing the "War Powers Act", is a declaration of war, as it meets every constitutional requirement for a DoW, even if it is a wimpy PC way to do it. Evidently, you have criteria and rules that are not constitutional when it comes to the use of military force to commit acts of war.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2012, 06:38   #136
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
The Founders did have it right, they did understand it better than anyone. So try to argue with this.

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." - Ben Franklin

"There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government" - Ben Franklin

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will be the end of the Republic." - Ben Franklin

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" -Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not" - Thomas Jefferson

An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens" - Thomas Jefferson.
I have no idea how your post is supposed to be an answer to mine. The founders were men. Simple humans. Imperfect in their professional and personal lives. They disagreed amongst themselves constantly, and with themselves on occasion. The document they created was imperfect, but it was a pretty good second attempt after an abject failure. Still, I like it.

I showed where three founders used authorizations for the use of force. One of them, commonly referred to as "THE FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION". Now none of these guys are as versed in the document as well as Ron Paul, buy its pretty clear that the intent of the constitution is congressional consent to wage war, and if it's good enough for Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams, they are good enough for me.

A rose by any other name...
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2012, 10:35   #137
Ringo S.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
DECLARE WAR. And that's exactly what we did throughout our history. Hell, we "declared war" on OURSELVES in the Civil War.
Many times before Korea USA conduct war, without Declaration of war. Of course, if you can call War by different name, you wouldn't have Wars at all.
For example Pershing Expedition in Mexico not War at all, despite US military entering other country. Same thing about Nicaragua in 1920s. And so and so.
Ringo S. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:27.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,346
399 Members
947 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42