destruction Posted October 12 Report Share Posted October 12 The Troops Don’t Support the Constitution By Jacob G. Hornberger 10/11/05 "Lewrockwell.com" -- --Every U.S. soldier takes an express and solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution.†That oath, however, is a sham because the troops do not support or defend the Constitution. Instead, when it comes to war the troops follow another oath they take – to obey the orders of the president, and they do this without regard to whether such orders violate the Constitution. A textbook example involves President Bush’s war on Iraq. The Constitution prohibits the president from waging war without first securing a declaration of war from Congress. By waging war on Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the president violated the Constitution. Some people pooh-pooh the violation, perceiving the Constitution as simply a technical document that can be violated whenever the president feels that “national security†– or even the welfare of foreigners – necessitates it. Some also make the claim that when Congress delegated its power to declare war on Iraq to the president (on the eve of the 2002 congressional elections), that delegation served as an adequate substitute for an actual declaration of war on Iraq. They are wrong. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land that we the people of the United States have imposed on our federal officials. Like it or not, U.S. officials are supposed to comply with its restrictions on power. If U.S. officials don’t like a particular constitutional provision or if they feel that it is outdated, the proper remedy is to seek a constitutional amendment, not ignore the provision. Moreover, the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation under our system of government, has long held that no branch of the federal government can lawfully delegate its constitutional powers to another branch of government. Only the Congress, not the president, is authorized to declare war, and without that declaration the president cannot lawfully wage war on another nation. We should bear in mind that had the president complied with the declaration-of-war requirement, the Congress might well have discovered in the process that the president’s WMD claims were defective. The Congress might also have concluded that invading a sovereign and independent country for the purpose of “spreading democracy†– a war in which tens of thousands of innocent people would be killed and maimed – could not be justified under moral principles. “But we can’t refuse orders of the president. He’s our commander in chief,†say the troops. “It’s not our job to determine what is constitutional or not. We deployed to Iraq, like it or not, because the president ordered us to do so.†Setting aside the moral implications of that position, doesn’t that mindset reflect that the oath that the troops take to support and defend the Constitution is in fact a sham? The troops know – or should know – that the Constitution prohibits the president from waging war without a congressional declaration of war. They also know that the Congress never declared war on Iraq. Nevertheless, they obeyed the president’s orders to attack Iraq. The president’s war on Iraq reflects why our nation’s Founding Fathers opposed standing armies. Members of a professional army, who have vowed to obey the orders of the president, are unlikely to say no when the president orders them to attack another country. On the other hand, a nation that relies instead on well-trained citizens (i.e., citizen-soldiers) to defend itself from a foreign attack would stand in a different position. Citizen-soldiers, while willing and prepared to rally to the defense of their own country in the event of an invasion, would be much less likely to answer the president’s call to leave their families and give up their jobs to attack a country thousands of miles away from American shores. Isn’t it ironic that, even as the troops waging war in Iraq exhort the American people to support them, the troops, by invading Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, have failed to support the Constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eccentricmofo Posted October 12 Report Share Posted October 12 The Troops Don’t Support the Constitution By Jacob G. Hornberger 10/11/05 "Lewrockwell.com" -- --Every U.S. soldier takes an express and solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution.†That oath, however, is a sham because the troops do not support or defend the Constitution. Instead, when it comes to war the troops follow another oath they take – to obey the orders of the president, and they do this without regard to whether such orders violate the Constitution. A textbook example involves President Bush’s war on Iraq. The Constitution prohibits the president from waging war without first securing a declaration of war from Congress. By waging war on Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the president violated the Constitution. Some people pooh-pooh the violation, perceiving the Constitution as simply a technical document that can be violated whenever the president feels that “national security†– or even the welfare of foreigners – necessitates it. Some also make the claim that when Congress delegated its power to declare war on Iraq to the president (on the eve of the 2002 congressional elections), that delegation served as an adequate substitute for an actual declaration of war on Iraq. They are wrong. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land that we the people of the United States have imposed on our federal officials. Like it or not, U.S. officials are supposed to comply with its restrictions on power. If U.S. officials don’t like a particular constitutional provision or if they feel that it is outdated, the proper remedy is to seek a constitutional amendment, not ignore the provision. Moreover, the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation under our system of government, has long held that no branch of the federal government can lawfully delegate its constitutional powers to another branch of government. Only the Congress, not the president, is authorized to declare war, and without that declaration the president cannot lawfully wage war on another nation. We should bear in mind that had the president complied with the declaration-of-war requirement, the Congress might well have discovered in the process that the president’s WMD claims were defective. The Congress might also have concluded that invading a sovereign and independent country for the purpose of “spreading democracy†– a war in which tens of thousands of innocent people would be killed and maimed – could not be justified under moral principles. “But we can’t refuse orders of the president. He’s our commander in chief,†say the troops. “It’s not our job to determine what is constitutional or not. We deployed to Iraq, like it or not, because the president ordered us to do so.†Setting aside the moral implications of that position, doesn’t that mindset reflect that the oath that the troops take to support and defend the Constitution is in fact a sham? The troops know – or should know – that the Constitution prohibits the president from waging war without a congressional declaration of war. They also know that the Congress never declared war on Iraq. Nevertheless, they obeyed the president’s orders to attack Iraq. The president’s war on Iraq reflects why our nation’s Founding Fathers opposed standing armies. Members of a professional army, who have vowed to obey the orders of the president, are unlikely to say no when the president orders them to attack another country. On the other hand, a nation that relies instead on well-trained citizens (i.e., citizen-soldiers) to defend itself from a foreign attack would stand in a different position. Citizen-soldiers, while willing and prepared to rally to the defense of their own country in the event of an invasion, would be much less likely to answer the president’s call to leave their families and give up their jobs to attack a country thousands of miles away from American shores. Isn’t it ironic that, even as the troops waging war in Iraq exhort the American people to support them, the troops, by invading Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, have failed to support the Constitution?dumb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted October 12 Report Share Posted October 12 dumbEccentricmofo.........it is posts like this by the social defect destruction that defines his idiocy, repulsiveness, and mental deformities....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlogic Posted October 12 Report Share Posted October 12 I prefer to look at those sort of posts as encouraging for the conservatives. That's all they've got, psycho-babble.ps,,,,have you pulled your foot from your tv set yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted October 12 Report Share Posted October 12 I prefer to look at those sort of posts as encouraging for the conservatives. That's all they've got, psycho-babble.ps,,,,have you pulled your foot from your tv set yet?Just did, in case I need it to kick destructions anti-American teeth in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destruction Posted October 12 Author Report Share Posted October 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eccentricmofo Posted October 12 Report Share Posted October 12 Eccentricmofo.........it is posts like this by the social defect destruction that defines his idiocy, repulsiveness, and mental deformities.......Your so very correct. I forget this on occasion and accidentally allow his comments to disturb me more then they should. The reason for my one-word reply to his post is this...From now on, I am not giving his dillusional ass anymore attention then he deserves. I've realized that he is just so pussy retard who has nothing else in this world besides anonymously instigating people online.Now surely.. he will come back with some shit-talking remark. But I'll will bet all that I own that he would NEVER have the nerve to even soley admit to his remarks made here if we ever met in person.ANd yes Miss Destruction...Feel free to print this post too...Id LOVE to goto court with the "scawwy threats" angle that you are pretending to follow through with.Oh yeah.. My bad... I didnt clearly give you any tangible evidence..How about this then...and I quote..myself for this one.."Mr. Destruction... a.k.a. pussy with the alias of such, I (eccentricmofo) fuck it... Paul Adamo, will personally Kick your mother-fucking ass if ever allowed such a randevous. Really really bad, by the way. Possibly hospitalize, but it all depends on my motivation levels at that particular moment." How do you like them apples huh?Oh yes... p.s. FUck you...!So anyways, Igloo and Dr. Logic.. completely unrelated topic... but...Any of you ever go gay-bashing before?I never have..... its illegal.. and I believe to each his own... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlogic Posted October 13 Report Share Posted October 13 b careful, that 47 yr. old chiwowa will print your post and report it to da' authoritaaaays!!!lolthafety first! LOL gosh golly mr. destruction, plz don't do that!jiminy christmas Wally, what will we do?as for the gay bashing part??? huh? you mean Scooter (aka-destruction)?Scooters harmles! He's already living a life of hell and he's reminded of that hell every time he looks in the mirror. HE WEARS A HELMET AND DOESN'T EVEN PLAY FOOTBALL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destruction Posted October 13 Author Report Share Posted October 13 Just did, in case I need it to kick destructions anti-American teeth in Translation:Supporting the Constitution of the United States of America is anti-American. I say lets revoke it. Heil Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelpaso Posted October 13 Report Share Posted October 13 The troops are relying on you to help them support the constitution. If you went to a concert, of your favorite group with a large group of fans, just like you, and everybody was supporting eachother who attended...Then you found out that some of your best friends were making fun of you, because you went...Then you found out that there were millions of people putting you down for going to that concert...Wouldn't you feel bad, if afterward, you went to your friends to brag about the fun you had there, and they wanted nothing to do with you anymore? That's how the troops feel, when they see that their own country is not there to support them, while they do something they believe in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destruction Posted October 13 Author Report Share Posted October 13 "We can support our troops without supporting our president."-- FORMER Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlogic Posted October 13 Report Share Posted October 13 The troops are relying on you to help them support the constitution. If you went to a concert, of your favorite group with a large group of fans, just like you, and everybody was supporting eachother who attended...Then you found out that some of your best friends were making fun of you, because you went...Then you found out that there were millions of people putting you down for going to that concert...Wouldn't you feel bad, if afterward, you went to your friends to brag about the fun you had there, and they wanted nothing to do with you anymore? That's how the troops feel, when they see that their own country is not there to support them, while they do something they believe in...Right on!I think the intercepted letter to Zarqawi from Zawahiri indicates our boys and girls along w/ the locals are accomplishing great things in Iraq. Truth be told, the greatest threat our people and Iraq faces are people like destruction. I think you've just gotta deal w/ garbage like that the same way you deal w/ a child. Ignore the tantrums! Arguing w/ pusillanimous social defects like that is futile. It's like arguing w/ a pet rock. He's a tool! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destruction Posted October 14 Author Report Share Posted October 14 Please Don’t Support My Troop By Michael Gaddy 10/12/05 "ICH" -- -- My son returned from Iraq last weekend after a year’s service. I confess to breathing much easier now that he is out of that quagmire. I have a personal request for all of you George W. Bush supporters and Christian warhawks: please do not support my troop. I have visions and aspirations of having him around, seeing him settle down and start a family at some point, and being near as I grow older. Your support would mean that he would be sent back to this war started and continued on lies to become a target for those who would rather live their lives without the interference of a foreign, empire-seeking, new-world-order, invader.Actually, my son completed his contractual obligation to the military several months ago, but thanks to your support, he has been stop-lossed and has no idea when he will be allowed to resign his commission.Why would I not want your support for my troop, you ask? Considering your support of our criminal government has led to the death, destruction and misery of millions of people on this planet, that is basically a no-brainer.Of course you supported the troops back in WWII and thought that was a good thing, but somewhere along the line your support of the State led to the leaving behind of over 20,000 of our soldiers, those liberated from German POW camps by the Russians, never to be heard from again. I’m sure those families appreciated your support.Back in 1950, you supported my father as he left my mother and me to go to war in Korea. He never returned, giving his life somewhere in that foreign land. Because of the loss of my father, my mother put a vodka bottle to her head and pulled the trigger. Your wonderful support took both my parents. Thanks again! Your continued support in Korea led to the abandonment of over 8,000 POW’s and MIA’s to the enemy. Do you wonder why many find your support lacking? Just ask the families of those who have been left behind by this government you support blindly.Some of you supported us as we went to the jungles of Southeast Asia; some chose not to. The results were the same; with or without your support, our criminal government cares nothing for those in uniform! Those of you who supported us claimed that those who didn’t were responsible for us losing the war. Horse Apples! We lost that war for the same reason we will lose the one in Iraq: wars started on lies to increase the bottom line of campaign contributors are seldom won because the war must be extended for as long as possible to insure the corporatocracy gets a full return on its money. There is a black granite wall in DC so all of you warhawks can go there and read the names of the 58,000+ charred souls you killed with your support. Just exactly where did that get us? Does Vietnam have a "democracy" today? Your continued support for a corrupt government led to over 2,000 military personnel being left behind in that war; with grieving families never knowing what happened to their loved ones.Your support in Beirut cost the lives of hundreds of Marines and Soldiers as people who wanted us to hell out of their country destroyed our soldiers' poorly protected barracks. Please give me the upside to this loss. Is Lebanon better off today because those good soldiers gave their lives?I can still see the faces of the young Army Rangers that were killed in the illegal invasion of Panama. With your support, they gave their lives to assist in serving a drug warrant on a foreign Head of State, one our government had supported for years. Is it not ironic that we later went to war with Iraq for doing to Kuwait the same thing you supported our soldiers doing to Panama?Your wonderful support led to the unspeakable horrors inflicted on those soldiers who were in Somalia! You should be especially proud of that one. Those dead soldiers dragged through the streets would not have been there had it not been for your "support." If you have trouble remembering this, some time spent with the book Black Hawk Down should jog your memory.Only in a true Orwellian society could citizens send off poorly trained and equipped soldiers, serving in a politically correct military, led by a civilian leadership that has spent the majority of their adult lives in a revolving door between the military industrial complex and government service, and call the damn thing, "supporting the troops."Why do we call people who prefer to live their lives without having their land bombed, their women, children and old folks killed, their national infrastructure destroyed and foreign soldiers on their soil, terrorists? Have you ever wondered what word the American Indian had for the U.S. government back in the middle to late 19th Century? History tells us we referred to them as "savages" and "those Red Devils" because they fought and died for their land and their culture. What did our ancestors call the British who were doing to the colonists precisely what our government does to others today?Time to come clean, America: you do not in any way support troops by sending them to die for Halliburton and Bechtel’s bottom line. This is analogous to sending your teenager out in a car with no brakes and bald tires, accompanied by a child rapist high on crystal meth, and calling that "supporting" your children.Rush Limbaugh was actually right for a change: there can be no support for the troops without supporting the war and the government that sent them there. Your misplaced support for the troops is actually support for a criminal enterprise in which the military serves as the enforcement arm of that enterprise. If you want to support the troops, do not allow the State to send them to their deaths for corporate profits in wars sired by lies! Michael Gaddy, <mgnc46@yahoo.com> is an U.S. Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelpaso Posted October 14 Report Share Posted October 14 stinummumoc! The whole bunch of you should join the military, then you can embrace the appreciation of the definition of freedom. Not all things that happen are President Bush's fault. He is the President, and he has appointed cabinet members who dictate, advise, and consent to war. These members design, scheme, and direct the war, and as if that weren't enough... they also protect you from being lynched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destruction Posted October 15 Author Report Share Posted October 15 stinummumoc! The whole bunch of you should join the military, then you can embrace the appreciation of the definition of freedom. Not all things that happen are President Bush's fault. He is the President, and he has appointed cabinet members who dictate, advise, and consent to war. These members design, scheme, and direct the war, and as if that weren't enough... they also protect you from being lynched.Too bad Bush can't keep the troops from being "lynched". This is how he "supports" our troops:http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?t=208898 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.