Sunday, September 1, 2013

The Constitutional Argument...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Confronted with a series of wrenching choices over Syria, Obama chose the course that best reflects fidelity to the Constitution as written. Hopefully, in the days ahead, taking that less traveled road by presidents will make all the difference. Walter Shapiro,Yahoo News

President Obama, looking beyond the partisan arguments, in the final analysis made the right decision based on the letter of the Constitution he is sworn to uphold.

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution reads as follows: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; —And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Credit to the President, after initially using the "Bully Pulpit" to make what I consider an erroneous case for military strikes against Syria he found the good sense to place the decision where it rightly belongs. With the Congress of the United Sates of America.

Read the full article HERE.

Via: Memeorandum

13 comments:

  1. It's a shame that this congress lacks the competence and decency to deal with this issue like adults.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. I miss Bill Clinton, who preferred to be confronted with wenching choices.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't remember Clinton that way.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't remember Clinton that way."

      I also remember Clinton taking the US to war against a country that did not ever attach us or threaten to attack us in any way whatsoever, and there were no related treaties that this country was violating.

      Delete
    2. Are you talking about the NATO intervention in post-Yugoslavia?

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. It was a US, Clinton-initiated action. Don't weasel out of this one.

      Delete
  4. Ever notice how the constitution speaks of "Navy" or "Naval Forces" and "Armies," "militias," and "land forces."

    No where does the constitution authorize for the establishment of an AIR FORCE.

    Does that make the Air Force unconstitutional?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tao: The Air Force was initially part of the Army. As such it can be counted as one of the "armies".

    ReplyDelete
  6. :-) Does this mean you believe the President should act independently and without Congressional approval? As per the War Powers Act? Which was by the way a huge mistake, IMNHO.

    ReplyDelete
  7. He could theoretically do something without them, but he's choosing this way. I would prefer he at least confer with them confidentially, if not more thoroughly and publicly, but the precedents suggest he could do it without them whether we like it or not. Unfortunately, he does not have a mature and decent audience on The Hill.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm against intervention either way but the fact that this is taking so long is allowing Assad to move his WMD and basically rendering a U.S. response even more symbolic than it would have been.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will said... "... the fact that this is taking so long is allowing Assad to move his WMD and basically rendering a U.S. response even more symbolic than it would have been."

      Deja Vu?

      Delete
  9. Les: The degree to which one finds profound differences between the Iraq situation a decade ago and the Syria crisis now is directly proportional to that person's blind idiot partisanship. Sure there are some fundamentel differences, but unintellectual partisanship (Obama good, Bush evil... and vice-versa) greatly amplifies it.

    Most commenting in your recent posts on this subject are avoiding this pitfall... with one glaring (and expected) exception.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.