Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (125143)	2/26/2004 6:26:31 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<I do not consider Jefferson to be the sole authority on what the Founding Fathers may have intended.> I don't consider him the sole authority, either. But I do consider him the best authority, since he wrote the rough draft. If you aren't convinced by 97 quotes from Jefferson, I can supply instead, an equal number of quotes from Madison, Franklin, any of the other Founders. Tell me, which one of the founders do you think wanted the war power shared with the Executive? Even Hamilton, the most Authoritarian Founder (which is why authoritarians always prefer to quote him, rather than any of the others), was clear on this: Alexander Hamilton: "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. . . . It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and the raising and regulating of fleets and armies, -- all of which by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." (The Federalist, 69, 1788.) ". . . .'The Congress shall have the power to declare war'; the plain meaning of which is, that it is the peculiar and exclusive duty of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war. . . ." (C. 1801.) (my emphasis) warandlaw.homestead.com They all said the same thing, and they all said it very clearly, many times. They all used words like "exclusively" "fully" "completely" "without exception" "in all events", to describe Congress's war-making power. They all believed that an Executive with any part of this power, created the risk of tyranny and unnecessary wars. Which is exactly what we are seeing today, with our war of aggression against Iraq, imprisonment without charge or trial of Padilla, and concentration camp in Guantanamo. It all flows from abandoning the principles the nation was founded on, and ignoring the Constitution.

To: Neocon who wrote (125143)	2/26/2004 7:19:02 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<the Supreme Court has chosen not to curtail presidential powers on this score, nor has the Congress made more than modest attempts to assert itself.> "The people of every country are the only safe guardians of their own rights." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wyche, 1809. "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson, 1819. The Supreme Court chose to look the other way, while the Amendment giving Blacks the vote was ignored from 1876 into the 1960s. At various times, the Supreme Court has voted to deny the vote to women, Chinese, Filipinos, Native Americans, illiterates, men who didn't own enough property, and men who didn't earn enough to pay taxes. When they made those decisions, a few (not enough) brave people said, "they got it wrong". Most people just said, "they're the experts, I'll trust their judgement." Which simply proves, that the Constitution is a meaningless scrap of paper, unless there are enough people willing to stand up for it. Today, the Executive is getting away with ignoring large and crucial sections of the Constitution. Congress and the Courts are rolling over and playing dead. Padilla was chosen, because, although he is a citizen, he is really a towel-head, an Other, born of Saudi parents who happened to be in the U.S. when he was born. "First they came for the Jews....." This is the test case, an opening wedge, to see how much they can get away with. If they can make Padilla disappear, then (having established the principle), they can creatively expand the definition of "illegal combatant" and "terrorist". They can create a climate of fearful suppression, where everyone is afraid to criticize the government. That statement about "The NEA is a terrorist organization" is another test case, a trial balloon, to see how far they can go, today, in labelling their peaceful political opponents as terrorists (and therefore outside all legal protection). If you think it can't happen today, just look at what happened in WW1. Wilson, who our euphemistic history books call a champion of democracy, used the war as an excuse to suppress a broad range of his domestic political opponents. The "war fever", the call to "support our troops" and "rally round the flag and the President" was used to imprison/ban/deport/kill everyone from Socialists to Quaker pacifists to Suffragists to trade union leaders. I was at the local protest against Halliburton, a few days ago, and I'll be at the March 20 protests (the anniversary of our war of aggression). I'll be at every local protest, and I'd be proud to go to jail if this government chooses to label me an "illegal combatant" or "terrorist". Jail is where patriots belong, when the government has forgotten the Constitution.