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 (125188)	2/27/2004 5:14:23 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

re: Sole Organ Doctrine: Thanks, this is an interesting article, especially the last section about historical use (and abuse) of Presidential power during wars. I didn't know, that Jefferson lied to Congress to get his authorization to attack the Barbary pirates. This article is nothing less than a direct attack on the most basic organizing principle of the Constitution: the Separation Of Powers. <At his discretion, the President can use the military to execute American foreign policy> = The President can make war, at his sole discretion <As the “sole organ” in foreign affairs, the President represents the United States internationally, including negotiating military agreements...> = Treaty-making power also gets transferred to the Executive. <The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government...that voice is the President of the United States of America> What he's saying, is that any power in foreign affairs, not explicitly allocated by the Constitution, automatically is exercised by the President. I'm not a Judge, or even a lawyer, but that seems a direct contradiction of: Constitution, Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. <the case United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation> This case gave the President the power to impose an arms embargo (i.e., telling an American company they can't sell weapons to certain foreigners). It's a great leap, to go from that, to the power of making war. This case gives the President no authority to engage our troops in anything. <It is the President who must determine the extent of his executive authority> A classic example of guarding henhouses with foxes. Give anyone the power to define the extent of their own authority, and the natural human tendency is to expand it without limit. <“Executive Authority.”> <"national security interest"> Those phrases, like "due process" and "equal justice" are elastic words, words that creative people can stretch and stretch to cover just about anything. Stretch it far enough, and Executive power is unlimited, which it what the "Sole Organ" doctrine amounts to. <However, the action of the President, and the United States in general, is restricted by the United Nations Charter regime governing the use of force. The President of the United States is entitled to use force in self defense only if an armed attack occurs.> Which means our recent war on Iraq was a War Of Aggression, and a war crime, a violation of the UN Charter. The way the WarLovers wriggle out of this one, is by a highly creative re-definition of the words "self defense" and "armed attack".