US AIRWAYS

[ChockJockey]

Talk about thread creep.. since when did this become a place to post doctoral dissertations? 🙄

You're sweet, but I'm still a ways off from applying to a Phd program.

 

[Dog Wonder]

You're sweet, but I'm still a ways off from applying to a Phd program.

That Golf Guy sure makes you look smart.

 

[ChockJockey]

That Golf Guy sure makes you look smart.

Th-thanks... :unsure:

 

[CallawayGolf]

It's true, I could have said that, but then I'd be saying something stupid. Whereas the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, raise armies, provide for a militia, etc., (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11-18) nowhere does it stipulate that any such declaration is necessary before U.S. forces can participate in hostilities. The President is the Commander in Chief, period (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Likewise, his is the power to negotiate treaties and appoint ambassadors (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2), as well as receive ambassadors from other nations (Article II, Section 3). Article II delegates the powers of military command and foreign policy to the Executive, it doesn't say how those powers are to be exercised. Almost always once U.S. forces are in combat the Congress has provided funding, whether or not they actually declared war. Ergo, there is no such thing as "an unconstitutional act of foreign policy".

You're clearly intelligent and articulate which I greatly respect and appreciate. I however, do not concur with your constitutional conclusions. Article II certainly appoints the President as Commander in Chief, but there is no specifically enumerated power that grants the President the power to decide how and where to send the nation's military. Those instructions can only come from Congress in Article I. The only military powers the Constitution grants to Congress are the powers to declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, to make rules concerning captures on land and on water; to maintain a Navy (note it does not say an Army or an Air Force, just Navy); to make rules for the government and regulation of the military forces (how they operate not where they go and who they can attack); to provide for the state militias to execute the laws of the Union (USA not the UN, NATO or anyone else); and to suppress insurrections and invasions.

The purpose is quite clear here. The states are to have individual militia forces which can be called up by an act of Congress if they declare war on another nation or if there is a need to repel and invasion or suppress a national insurrection. The rest of the enumerated powers simply allow Congress and the President to maintain a battle-ready Navy and standing officer corps that can respond should congress grant a declaration of war. The Constitution does not specifically enumerate the power to maintain a standing Army because the states were responsible for maintaining those forces in reserve to be called up in a time of war. Of course those states have no authority to go to war separate from the Feds so the state militias could not act in any of the capacities in which you describe.

So unless any of these post WWI conflicts were authorized by an act of war, or to repel and invasion on US soil, or to put down an insurrection of the people on the US government, then they were all unconstitutional and unquestionably illegal. You can't just pretend that the Constitution enumerates a power by inference and then claim a non-enumerated power is constitutional. It was never intended to work that way as the Tenth Amendment clearly articulates. If a power is not specifically granted, is it reserved for the states. If the Constitution needs to be amended to account for political changes that have occurred since 1789, then there is an intentionally rigorous process that allows the states to confer a new enumerated power to Congress. If the states do not grant this new power by the amendment process, then it is still unconstitutional. There is no grey area here. Either an action is specifically enumerated or it is reserved for the states.

Did we make a treaty with any of those post WWII nations before we started bombing them and firing bullets at them? If so, please present the treaty. Otherwise bringing up the power of the President and the Senate to engage in a treaty is totally irrelevant to the discussion of constitutionally permissible military action. Your choices are still 1) declaration of war, 2) repel an invasion on US soil, or 3) put down an insurrection against the federal government; other than those three options there is no constitutional grounds for the actions you seem to be supportive of.

How exactly does a Christian justify initiating nuclear genocides on the scale of tens of millions?

There are multiple responses to this. First of all the whole purpose of granting or forcing Congress to have the power to decide to declare war is that military conflict should never be taken lightly. Elected representatives of the people must come together and agree that a particular threat is acute, real and a genuine such that the American people will support it to defend the United States. If they can't come to such an agreement then we simply cannot go to war. If a threat meets the approval of this body of elected representatives, then they need to also state in the declaration of war what the outcome needs to be. If the declaration includes the complete surrender and total disarmament of a foreign nation, then that is what the Commander in Chief must legally accomplish by order of Congress. If that means demonstrating a full measure of force to gain surrender then so be it. The nation with which we were at war with could have surrendered and saved the lives of their citizens but hypothetically did not if we started a nuclear campaign against them. So if they know the US can destroy their entire nation and has the full authority to do so, they might think twice about engaging in a military conflict with the US. If they do not surrender and disarm, then that was their choice, not ours. Let the bombs fall where they may.

Why is it okay to go to war and kill one person if its not okay to go to war and kill 50 million people as you suggest? Where is the moral line that says X number of casualties is perfectly okay but 100X or 1,000,000X or whatever is not? Who makes those rules? Is there a passage of Scripture that tells us what that exact threshold of casualties is? Murder is clearly immoral according to Scripture. Manslaughter is sometimes understandable but still may require a punishment as a crime. Capital punishment is not only not immoral, it is immoral not to sentence a person to death who has murdered another person. Casualties of war are not murder or manslaughter. Moses and Joshua soundly defeated multiple nations and were instructed by God to kill every living thing in that city. David was a man of war with much blood on his hands and yet God calls him a man after His own heart. Jesus commended the Roman centurion in his faith even though he was a man who had the authority to oversee the deaths of many people in military/state ordered actions. So what can we conclude from this? If the cause is just and the nation is engaged in war with another nation, the military actions are fully justified on a moral basis for seeking the total defeat of the enemy. When Jesus comes back at the end of the age the Scriptures record the battle as creating enough human blood of God's enemies to fill a valley for more than 100 miles up to the height of the bridle of horses. That's a lot of blood and Jesus' own garments are covered in that blood. Kind of puts a damper on your "how can you justify genocide" statement doesn't it?

As for the rest of your comments I will not respond to unless you request me to do so.

 

[Phoenix]

That Golf Guy sure makes you look smart.

Evidently he can't help it.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Evidently he can't help it.

ChockJockey deserves a lot of credit for engaging in a respectful dialog with some intellectually sound reasons to support his message. We may never agree on the finer points of the Constitution or the economy, but he has my fullest respect for the way he handles himself on these boards.

On the other hand, the ad hominem comments made by some who can't engage in a respectful debate or refute facts or logic have certainly shown us that they have little to contribute by way of cognitive reasoning. They just lob some drive by sound bites so as to not show just how far their level of ignorance goes. It's a free forum with little administrative oversight, so there is no reason to be held accountable to your comments unless you have a personal moral standard to live by. Lob away.

 

[Phoenix]

ChockJockey deserves a lot of credit for engaging in a respectful dialog with some intellectually sound reasons to support his message. We may never agree on the finer points of the Constitution or the economy, but he has my fullest respect for the way he handles himself on these boards.

On the other hand, the ad hominem comments made by some who can't engage in a respectful debate or refute facts or logic have certainly shown us that they have little to contribute by way of cognitive reasoning. They just lob some drive by sound bites so as to not show just how far their level of ignorance goes. It's a free forum with little administrative oversight, so there is no reason to be held accountable to your comments unless you have a personal moral standard to live by. Lob away.

Oh, was there a debate going on? Don't let me interrupt.