Levin on Paul's war argument.
Submitted by Briefcase on Sat, 06/20/2009 - 19:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di-UONFaiuw
Levin IS an arrogant douche bag and previous statements and criticism he has made regarding dr.paul are complete bs but this argument against dr.paul's illegal war argument seems to have some substance. Is he misunderstanding dr.paul's argument or is dr.paul misunderstanding the constitution? If the first is true could someone please explain how the war was indeed illegal? thanks. (no need to watch the whole video the only relevent subject matter is in the beginning.)
»
Did Someone Mention the 17th Amendment?
My favorite subject.
I have a fix for that. First off, it's invalid on it's face. Here's why:
"and that NO state, without it's consent, shall be deprived of its equal sufrage in the Senate."
Article 5 last clause, US constitution. Since this appears in the section that allows for amendments, it is an exception to the rule. Any amendment that altered the states representation in the Senate had to be agreed to by ALL the states. At least 10 states failed to agree to the change the 17th brought about by their refusal to ratify the 17th.
For more on this subject, and for the solution to toss the 17th on the ash-heap of history, please see my blog at (please forgive the length of the blog at the link below but in order to properly explain all the nuances, it has to be a detailed article):
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&frie...
Thanks for you
Does it surprise anyone that
Does it surprise anyone that the most unpopular wars also happen to be wars that weren't declared?
To your boss,
Freedom is not FREE!!
Please get this shill, idiot, troll, a&^*$le, off the DP. I think you and this SHILL misunderstand the constitution and you and HE are trying to divide. Division is an amazing thing because anything can be divided. Corn. beer,dogs(oops, sorry), people, NEO_CONS. Anything can be divided.
By the way, climb back into your briefcase. If I am not allowed to post anymore that is okay. At least my briefcase is clean and not full of S&^t.
Freedom is not FREE!!
Your behavior, JIMR... is
Your behavior, JIMR... is the kind that will no longer be tolerated on the Daily Paul.
FINALLY Thanks Michael
FINALLY
Thanks Michael
"Thanks a lot guys, quality
"Thanks a lot guys, quality education right there. I couldn't have asked for a more clear answer. I apologize for not responding for awhile; i was on a trip."-me, like one post below yours, dumbass.
If it was legal Bush would not have needed the guise of
enforcing UN sanctions along with the "coalition of the willing".
That was his reason for the aggressive attack against a sovereign nation that held no threat to our country.
"Since 1789 the only government on Earth that has the power to crush the American people`s liberties across the board is the government of the United States"
Robert Higgs
Thanks a lot guys, quality
Thanks a lot guys, quality education right there. I couldn't have asked for a more clear answer. I apologize for not responding for awhile; i was on a trip.
Would Levin also suggest that if the Congress
decided to delegate its obligation to make no law against freedom of speech, the press, etc., that they could, if they "liked" the resolution give authority to the President to "fiddle with" the First Amendment at "his discretion"?
This is proof positive of a parallel universe, and my DP friends, we're livin' in it.
Link to Ron Paul's 2002 request for formal declaration
Ron Paul explains the importance of Art 1, sec 8 so clearly a 5th grader can understand, but alas, it is too difficult for a self proclaimed constitutional expert like Levin. Remember this was seven years ago, and the good doctor called it right from the start.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul50.html
Steven Orrange
There is international law
that the United States adheres to. It's a war crime to willy-nilly invade countries who have done you no harm, and indeed don't have the ability to do harm. Seems like I remember there were those at Nuremberg who were executed for that sort of thing.
You mean like enforcing UN
You mean like enforcing UN resolutions, that is Americas' designated job .UN enforcer, which is what got us into Iraq.
you-no
I honestly couldn't listen to the whole thing,
but did I hear Levin quote Article 1 Section 8 about Congress having the authority to declare war and then go on to say that in the resolutions Congress gave the President the authority to go to war at his discretion? Please help me, somebody. This is almost too much to bear for me any more. I am speechless. My God...
I think you need to respond to this thread, briefcase
People have given very good points against what you deem some sort of argument from Levin. What is your view of those points?
Its about the balance of power
Article 1 Section 8 granted Congress the right to declare war. The Framers were very careful in creating a system of checks and balances so that no one group or fraction could take control. All that good work was pretty much done away with by the 17th Amendment which transfered the power to elect members of the Senate from State Legislators to popular election. That just about did away with State Rights and why we have a run away Federal Government and a kiss ass Supreme Court. But back to the idea that the Constitution created a balance of powers. If the Constitution granted Congress the power to Declare War then only Congress can Declare War. Congress can not just say oh we are not really sure about that power so we will just give it to someone else. Lets just give the power to the President then pretend we were against what ever he dose.
First off the Constitution dose not allow for delegation of powers by one branch to another. If it did then the entire document would mean nothing, but the Federal government wants you to think the Constitution means nothing. Think of the Constitution as a contract. We the people elect different people to do different things in government. Just the same as we pick someone to fix a broken car and someone else to fix a broken toilet. Would you be happy if your car was sent down the street to be fixed the the plumber?
If you want to let Congress transfer every power that Congress has over to the President then what point is their to even having a Congress? Just let the President declare war and pick and confirm the Supreme Court and we can have a happy little dictatorship.
States no longer have any power, and as an individual the greats power you have is selecting a member of the House, then Senate, but if once they are in office all they do is give power to the President? The individual has lost all power and freedom.
Please see my 17th amendment post a few replies above.
Thanks,
Paul.
We have already arrived at
We have already arrived at this point...And the presidency is being dictated by the UN agenda.
you-no
Well said, K"olsch.
I would add that the war powers act demonstrates that everybody knew and knows these wars are illegal going all the way back to Korea and Viet Nam, since the war powers act (giving the president power to prosecute military actions any time and anywhere) was passed specifically to formalize the statement: We are now going to ignore the constitution.
The 1998
Clinton resolution he is referring to - and where Paul, Sanford and a few others voted against - was NO war declaration, but called for democracy promotion. It is a bit left open though which means. If Levin would be correct, why did Henry Hyde (GOP leader then) told Paul that part of the constitution is "anachronistic" and the D minority leader agreed with Hyde? This means they did NOT obey that part of the constitution. If a war declaration would have been drafted, they would have had to state the aims and goals as well.
Of course Dr. Paul would say if there is an imminent attack, then the president alone has the power to declare a war, as there would be no time to debate in congress. But this situation will almost never happen.
Where are the American Jews who are not NeoCons?
Where are the American Jews, both Left & Right, that are not NeoCons?
Where are the American Jews, who disagree OPENLY with their America Jewish NeoCons?
It is those American Jews, who are not NeoCons, who do not put Israel First, who put American FIRST, who NEED to OPENLY take these American Jewish NeoCons to task.
These American Jews who are NeoCons like Levin, like Savage, etc are so vocal that only American Jews who are NOT NeoCons can take them on, point, by point, by point.
If you argue with these public NeoCon pundits, you will be attacked as..
1) A leftist
2) Anti Israel
3) Anti Jew
4) Stupid
5) Historically uninformed.
Much like this video, where Thomas Sowell takes on big time Welfarist, only a BLACK Thomas Sowell can say this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI and here he is on Equality at the 3 minute mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJBeuR0xEP8
Today in 2009, if a white gentile says something we will be labeled as an Anti Semite and worse. This is why we so desperately need an American Jews who are NOT NeoCons, put America First, to step up and Argue with these NeoCon pundits directly.
We do have American Jews in our RP revolution. Its time they get on You Tube and SPEAK UP...
in peace and liberty.
Treg
How about these guys?
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
In Britain, many prominent Jews speak out against Zionism. Here is the Liverpool-born Jewish Comedian Alexei Sayle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_t0sJ-N0qg
"I believe the true significance of the Gold Commission is that the politicians and central bankers were so alarmed at such a thing that they made sure it was packed by an array of Keynesians and monetarists." (Ron Paul 1985)
There are American Jews
who speak out against the neocon Jews in the R AND D parties, but they are not so influential and definitely AIPAC would be opposed to them. There are on the right American Jews like Murray Sabrin, Peter Schiff and others as well as some orthodox Jews who support Paul and were against the Iraq war. On the left there are also Jews like Philip Weiss, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Wolf (and Naomi Klein) who are strictly against the wars and also critical of Israel. They are all speaking out, but they do not control the media. You also have the extreme example of Bobby Fischer, who went to the other side, so to speak...
On the lobby front there is J Street now also, but they are young and not so influential and more on the left wing of the D party.
About the stupid anti-Semitism screams, it should be noted that it is NOT only Jews that are Semites. Some ethnic groups in Lebanon etc. are also Semites,
I think it would also for this reason be very good if Schiff runs for senate.
You know what the neocon Jews calls Jews that are critical of Israel's policies? "self-hating Jews". LOL how can you hate yourself? These are the same neocons Jews who would denounce any other nation's nationalistic feelings....mind you.
Naomi Wolf
Naomi Wolf was not and is not against the Iraq war. She supported and supports Obama.
scary
----------------
Ron Paul Supporter Since 1997
`Wise people, even though all laws were abolished, would still lead the same life'- Aristophanes -
“We have allowed our nation to be over taxed and over regulated and overrun by bureaucrats, the founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with.” Ron Paul
Its hilarious how nitwit Levin
Tries to explain how its constitutionally legal to have an undeclared war then goes on to explain all the problems involved in an undeclared war.
He is a NeoCon, like the rest, a talking head.
He is very arrogant.
Undeclared wars never end. Ever notice that?
Declared wars set an agenda to win and quickly and then get out. The country is geared toward war when a declared war occurs. No football playoffs, golf, or baseball.
No half way wars with life as usual while people are getting killed.
Wars are horrible and terrible, not life as usual.
Why even talk about this guy?
Levine is a big mouth idiot
Levine is a big mouth idiot who doesn't know the first thing abut the constitution. If I ever saw him I'd be very tempted to punch him in the face!
-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Declaring War
Declaring war requires naming another soverieign political entity and declaring war against that entity. "Authorizing the use of force" against a particular dictator in order to remove him from power and replace him with someone we prefer is not war. Use of force against terrorists is not a war. If indeed it was a war, we would have entered, secured a surrender of their armed forces (which basically occurred the first day we were there) then come home. Furthermore, it is quite clear in the Constitution that our armed forces are to be used to defend US against invasion, NOT to initiate force against nations that have not attacked us. THAT is why it is illegal. It is an illegal OCCUPATION of an otherwise sovereign state. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that permits that.
I sent an email to the Mark Levin show stating this and I think others should do the same. It's bad enough that politicians these days wish to inflict daily pain on their own citizens without giving them license to initiate force against any third-world country that strikes their fancy.
KenM
Please don`t listen to that doochbag any more it may make
you sick!!
"Since 1789 the only government on Earth that has the power to crush the American people`s liberties across the board is the government of the United States"
Robert Higgs
NUTS!
*