Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are many situations in which you should judge two things or people by the same standard. If in one of those situations you use different standards for the two, your reasoning contains the fallacy of using a double standard.
The fallacy occurs when we accept an inconsistent set of claims, that is, when we accept a claim that logically conflicts with other claims we hold.
Lampooning...
There are many situations in which you should judge two things or people by the same standard. If in one of those situations you use different standards for the two, your reasoning contains the fallacy of using a double standard.
The fallacy occurs when we accept an inconsistent set of claims, that is, when we accept a claim that logically conflicts with other claims we hold.
Lampooning...
The federal government has no real authority to own property. That does not preclude the government from leasing property.
That's just plain wrong. Do you really think the federal government can't own the property on which it builds military bases, the White House, or the lands it purchased from France in the Louisiana Purchase? I guess the West should be ceded to France, as Jefferson's government acted beyond the scope of its authority .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Federal parks, no, State and local parks, yes.
So you don't believe that the 2nd should apply to the States (although I assume you recognize that it does, in fact)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Elections were held in the Soviet Union, and all East Bloc States (with the possible exception of Albania).
Elections were held in Germany during the NAZI era.
Elections were held while US Citizens were interred in concentration camps in the US during the WW II era.
Elections were held during the years property, assets and possessions of US Citizens were confiscated, without compensation and not returned. Those US Citizens were eventually given a paltry restitution decades later.
Explain to us the magic of the ballot box.
Explain to me how the internment camps could have been stopped by Japanese-Americans taking up arms against the government--at a time when the US was at war with Japan. Neither the Soviets, nor the Germans had our system of government, but keep grasping at straws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
What's the problem? Can't afford Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw? There's no shame in that, the shame is running to pukipedia.
What is this vague ambiguous nebulous "Executive Power" of which you speak?
The Executive Power is the term used by the Constitution (which you can find on Lexis and elsewhere). Curtiss-Wright is available on Lexis and elsewhere. You believe that the case's discussion of the nature of sovereignty has absurd implications for the division of power between the Executive, the States, and the People. It does not--at least not beyond the simple appurtenances of sovereignty.
Sutherland attempted to divide the power of the federal government into two categories (thereby building to his conclusion that the President is the sole organ of foreign affairs): domestic and foreign affairs. His argument has not carried the day in jurisprudence on Executive Power. He does, however, rightly recognize that the United States is a single, sovereign nation, and that the President is the responsible for the nation's foreign affairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You are absolutely correct.
Now, tell us why (hint: the answer is not in pukipedia). ...The investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereigns, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality.
The views of Justice Sutherland are predicated on these known facts:
Authority in the latter area is limited to that granted by the Constitution, expressly or by implication, but the foreign affairs power is extra-constitutional, because the powers of "external sovereignty" passed directly from the British Crown to "the colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America." The States (or colonies) severally never enjoyed power over foreign affairs.
[emphasis mine]
Note that the Constitution does discuss foreign affairs powers of the federal government, noting 1) Congress' power to provide for the common defense, 2) Congress' power over foreign commerce, 3) Congress' power over naturalization, 4) Congress' powers over piracy and the Laws of Nations, 5) Congress' powers to declare war, raise armies and navies, 6) Congress' power to regulate the military, 7) Congress' power to regulate the militia, 8) the extensive restrictions on states' influence over foreign affairs from Art. I, section 10, 9) the President's Commander-in-Chief Power, 10) the President's Treaty Power, and 11) the President's ambassador appointment power.
While Justice Sutherland does not think that explicit expression was necessary for foreign affairs in the Constitution--the Constitution does vest the power over foreign affairs in the federal government. Justice Sutherland is noting, quite simply, that the United States is a sovereign nation--a term of art that has meaning in foreign affairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Why?
Why are those facts true?
Because the several States ceded certain powers to form the federal republic under the Constitution. Prior to that, they had ceded certain powers to the national government under the Articles of Confederation. And, prior to that, the Colonies as predcessors of the several States ceded power to the Continental Congress.
And then prior to that, some -- but not all -- of the Colonies ceded certain powers to the Stamp Act Congress.
There is no evidence the Stamp Act Congress ever formally dissolved, so that you have a continuous spectrum from the Stamp Act Congress to the Continental Congress to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.
Even if you could prove that the Stamp Act Congress in some way ceased, you are still left with the fact that you have a continuous succession from the Continental Congress to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.
Note that the Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence.
Just plain wrong. Prior to independence, the British Crown was the sovereign. The united colonies jointly declared independence as the United States of America. As you'll note from Curtiss-Wright, they did not assert sovereignty severally, but as one sovereign entity. Your Continental Congress/Stamp Act theory is unsupported by law or history. That case was not about "certain powers," but about sovereignty. Sovereignty encompasses powers, but those powers are simply incidental to the fact of being a sovereign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
There was never a "question."
There was simply a large bully trying to control. Odd that ideas of both the North and South rested on controlling others.
Also, factually speaking, the South is a separate and distinct entity.
When the topic of secession arises, the Stupid® and the Ignorant® always knee-jerk "the South."
It is a baseless assumption that secession can only happen if the "CSA" secedes. In fact, you have an auto-fail, since New England states have discussed secession much seriously and for longer than any other States of late. Vermont and New Hampshire aren't the Deep South.
By the way....are you aware that the Civil War took place in the 19th Century?
Did you know this is the 21st Century?
What, you thought there'll be another Gettysburg and Bull Run Battles?
In the 20th Century -- because I like to run my mouth -- my bosses sent me out to the National Training Center. I made a lot of believers out of people (and impressed my bosses). I wrote that up for Airland Battle 2000.
If you don't understand the nature of warfare, then you should probably go hide and take lots of food, water and toilet paper with you, plus start hanging out on the Survival sub-forum.
There is no right of secession amongst the states. Your sympathy for the Confederacy is noted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You're comparing people who have committed Capital Offenses against those who have moving traffic violations?
Felonies are not capital crimes. Roughly 12% of arrests are for drug crimes (simple possession makes up about 82% of those). In comparison, about 4% of arrests are for violent crimes and about 13% of arrests are for property crimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
We do when Life & Death is at stake. Real soldiers don't want loose cannons on the battlefield (or in the barracks for that matter).
You are (this is a running theme) misunderstanding what rights are. Individual rights are largely identified in Amendments to the US Constitution. They include rights like the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those rights are not taken away because someone "can't follow instructions" or "should not have those rights."
There is no right to be in the military, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Oh, yes, they are. The Geneva Conventions apply.
Armed conflict is distinguishable from armed violence. Where ever armed conflict exists, the Geneva Conventions apply.
There are two recognized types of conflict, international and internal. During an internal conflict, everyone falls under Common Article 3 (so-called because it is Article III in all 5 Geneva Conventions).
The Geneva Conventions are part of the Laws of War. They govern armed conflicts, not armed violence. There is a difference between the ordinary exercise of police powers and an internal armed conflict.
Article III would indeed apply to an armed conflict not of international character (i.e., a civil war). That does not mean that your possession of a firearm creates an armed conflict--even your use of that firearm does not create an armed conflict. Article II deals with when the Conventions apply. As noted in that Article, the full convention is not applicable in peacetime.
There are many situations in which you should judge two things or people by the same standard. If in one of those situations you use different standards for the two, your reasoning contains the fallacy of using a double standard.
The fallacy occurs when we accept an inconsistent set of claims, that is, when we accept a claim that logically conflicts with other claims we hold.
Lampooning...
Mircea
Double standard is only apt where the two things are sufficiently similar. You have also demonstrated no inconsistency.
If we review the case of Columbia v. Heller, the court decided that State cannot restrict an individual from carrying a firearm because a government official doesn't think they face enough threats to justify doing so and affirms carrying a gun in public for self defense is in fact a protected right under the Second Amendment.
It is actually a second amendment victory.
If we could only get the Hughes Amendment thrown out it would have been a great day..
Except that the founders rebelled because of taxation without representation, in the UK people were taxed and had representation, since Parliament was elected by a form of democratic vote (which permitted landowners to vote which in all fairness were the taxable class). However in the US there was no representation in the British Parliament, and American landowners who met the very criteria that should they to be in England, Scotland, or Wales would have had representation and voting rights were denied (and we must remember that at that time Britain saw itself as both the island of Great Britain, and it's colonies interchangeably).
Voting rights in the original intent of the Constitution were to be left to the states to decide. Initially this mostly amounted to all Caucasian males who had 50 acres or more of land (except New Jersey who permitted all landowners with more than 50 acres of land regardless of gender, and a few other states where men of any race who met the land ownership criteria), or who had taxable income. It wasn't until the 14th, 15th, 19th and 23rd Amendments that we have voting as its seen today.
Therefore the initial form of Constitutional Republic that the US created had precisely the same democratic process that Great Britain of the time did, the exception being that the executive branch was elected, and not hereditary.
If there was British Tyranny it was caused by the democratic process, since British landowners wanted more control of government than their colonial counterparts. As the British Landowners were in the majority, it was no great difficulty for them to vote against permitting colonial representation and voting rights in British Elections. Indeed the "Intolerable Acts" was an act of Parliament and promulgated by Frederick North (Lord North) the British Prime Minister and head of the house of commons.
This is precisely the reason that the US Constitution is a safeguard against the Tyranny of the Majority, since the Founders (who almost exclusively would have been wealthy landowners in Britain, with all rights and privileges thereof) were victimized by this very process.
Gungnir, I want to thank you for coming to and defending our nation, our rights, and our Constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
