|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 29, 2014 12:57:38 GMT
Wow! What a major digression from my central point. Although I, too, oppose all tyranny, that was not the point I was addressing. Rather, I had noted that the US was attempting to stop communist expansionism, based upon the so-called "Domino Theory." No, not merely because communism is tyrranical--it is, but that is hardly the point--but because capitalist society (as epitomized by the US, and as spearheaded by it) was in a life-or-death struggle with the ideology of communism. The theory held that if South Vietnam fell to the communists, eventually the rest of southeast Asia would follow suit; then, Europe would fall; and eventually, the US would also fall. (This belief was not entirely fatuous, as Marx had made no provision for the accommodation of capitalism by communism. Rather, he had preached worldwide revolution by the "proletariet.") And I am not at all sure how you might know, for a certainty, that the US spends ten times as much on its military budget as, say, China does. In order to believe that, you must rely upon the Chinese leadership to indicate, precisely and accurately, what they are spending on the military. In other words, you must rely upon the honor system. (Note: The US certainly spends far more on its military than any European country does, as Europe prefers to divert its money to propping up the social-welfare state. This has been the case since the end of WWII. But I am not much worried that the US might soon be invaded by a coalition of, say, France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and the UK.)
My point being that you don't go to war over political or economic theory. That is not a legitimate basis for war. Only acts of aggression against the nation can justify the use of military force as an act of self-defense of the people of the nation.
If the People of Vietnam choose to be socialists with a communist government then by what authority does the United States wage war against them? They're not harming us by their political/economic system. I don't agree with the political/economic philosophy of communism/socialism but that doesn't give me the right to kill someone that believes in it.
We can't even argue that we have the right or duty to intervene in the sovereign affairs of another nation where the people are oppressed by tyranny according to the Declaration of Independence.
www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html
It is the Right and the Duty of those subjected to absolute despotism to throw off such government and provide new safeguards for their future security. As "outsiders" we can't even make the call that their government has exceeded what they are willing to tolerate as that is their responsibility, not ours. Of course we can object to their treatment by their government, and can even take measures of our own to not support that despotism, but that doesn't give us the Right or Duty to overthrow their government as that would violate their sovereignty as a people.
The estimates of expenditures by the Chinese on their military are based upon US and international intelligence sources and are not based upon what the Chinese tell us. They are not "perfect" down to the yen but are estimates that are relatively accurate. We've been tracking the Chinese military for decades first with U-2 over-flights, then with SR-71 over-flights, and today with satellites. We know, for example, that the Chinese have only one POS antique aircraft carrier that they purchased from the Russians that couldn't even recover planes when purchased.
BTW We also know that the Chinese have no intention of attacking the United States are are incapable of doing so with any chance of success. Even if the Chinese and Russians wanted to attack the United State they have no hope of success because they are militarily too weak to defeat us.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 29, 2014 18:32:06 GMT
I am really not sure why you might suppose that I prefer the text of the Constitution over the intent of those who framed the Constitution and its subsequent amendments. Actually, I believe in the text, according to the intent of its authors. For example, I dislike the idea of military conscription (which was abolished in the US over 40 years ago); but I would not wish to invoke the Thirteenth Amendment--which prohibits "involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"--since that was penned shortly after the end of the Civil War, and was intended to put an end to the institution of slavery, rather than to end military conscription. I certainly agree that women, in the late eighteenth century, were "often considered little more than the chattel of their father or husband." Nowadays, that strikes most of us--myself included--as downright absurd. Even morally reprehensible. Still, I believe that the text of the Constitution should have been applied as its authors intended--without twenty-first-century sensibilities being superimposed upon those words--until constitutional amendments were written and ratified to correct the inherent unfairness deriving therefrom. (And I really do not care for the expansive use of vague language in some amendment--including, but certainly not limited to, the Ninth Amendment--to try to overturn the clear intent found elsewhere. In constitutional theory, just as in biblical hermeneutics, specific references should always trump general principles.)
Often times it's not the text of the US Constitution but instead our failure to understand what the text covers. For example I can't think of any Amendment to the US Constitution that would logically change the protections that the 9th Amendment expressly enumerates. What I can state is that by gaining knowledge related to what the Inalienable Rights of the Person are that more protections are afforded by it. We don't need to change the Constitution by amendment but instead apply our ever expanding understanding of the Inalienable Rights that are already protected by the current amendment. Once again we didn't really require the 13th Amendment to end slavery. All we had to do was apply the Inalienable Right of Liberty to those that were enslaved in violation of the 9th Amendment.
BTW I also oppose conscription for military service but I also read my State Constitution where (with minor exceptions) it states that all males between the ages of 18 and 45 are members of the State Milita. The "State" can therefore call up males between 18-45 for military service and, according to Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution, the US Congress has the authority to call up the "militia" of the States in times of war or insurrection. Of course that would require a formal declaration of war that didn't happen during the Vietnam War when we had the draft but that just reflects Congress ignoring the US Constitution which is not at all uncommon. I would suggest you check your State Constitution because I believe all of them have this same provision related to the "militia" in them.
I appreciate your noting what your state constitution says about the matter of conscription into the state militia. It is most informative. But, as I am 66 years of age (oh, and also disabled), it is entirely an academic matter to me what the Tennessee state constitution may say about it. I would be very careful about relying upon an "ever expanding understanding" of the US Constitution. It is precisely that sort of (infinitely flexible) view to which "Living Constitution" theorists adhere. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 29, 2014 18:45:37 GMT
Wow! What a major digression from my central point. Although I, too, oppose all tyranny, that was not the point I was addressing. Rather, I had noted that the US was attempting to stop communist expansionism, based upon the so-called "Domino Theory." No, not merely because communism is tyrranical--it is, but that is hardly the point--but because capitalist society (as epitomized by the US, and as spearheaded by it) was in a life-or-death struggle with the ideology of communism. The theory held that if South Vietnam fell to the communists, eventually the rest of southeast Asia would follow suit; then, Europe would fall; and eventually, the US would also fall. (This belief was not entirely fatuous, as Marx had made no provision for the accommodation of capitalism by communism. Rather, he had preached worldwide revolution by the "proletariet.") And I am not at all sure how you might know, for a certainty, that the US spends ten times as much on its military budget as, say, China does. In order to believe that, you must rely upon the Chinese leadership to indicate, precisely and accurately, what they are spending on the military. In other words, you must rely upon the honor system. (Note: The US certainly spends far more on its military than any European country does, as Europe prefers to divert its money to propping up the social-welfare state. This has been the case since the end of WWII. But I am not much worried that the US might soon be invaded by a coalition of, say, France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and the UK.)
My point being that you don't go to war over political or economic theory. That is not a legitimate basis for war. Only acts of aggression against the nation can justify the use of military force as an act of self-defense of the people of the nation.
If the People of Vietnam choose to be socialists with a communist government then by what authority does the United States wage war against them? They're not harming us by their political/economic system. I don't agree with the political/economic philosophy of communism/socialism but that doesn't give me the right to kill someone that believes in it.
We can't even argue that we have the right or duty to intervene in the sovereign affairs of another nation where the people are oppressed by tyranny according to the Declaration of Independence.
www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html
It is the Right and the Duty of those subjected to absolute despotism to throw off such government and provide new safeguards for their future security. As "outsiders" we can't even make the call that their government has exceeded what they are willing to tolerate as that is their responsibility, not ours. Of course we can object to their treatment by their government, and can even take measures of our own to not support that despotism, but that doesn't give us the Right or Duty to overthrow their government as that would violate their sovereignty as a people.
The estimates of expenditures by the Chinese on their military are based upon US and international intelligence sources and are not based upon what the Chinese tell us. They are not "perfect" down to the yen but are estimates that are relatively accurate. We've been tracking the Chinese military for decades first with U-2 over-flights, then with SR-71 over-flights, and today with satellites. We know, for example, that the Chinese have only one POS antique aircraft carrier that they purchased from the Russians that couldn't even recover planes when purchased.
BTW We also know that the Chinese have no intention of attacking the United States are are incapable of doing so with any chance of success. Even if the Chinese and Russians wanted to attack the United State they have no hope of success because they are militarily too weak to defeat us.
The assertion that "[o]nly acts of aggression...can justify military force" necessarily begs the question: What, exactly, might qualify as "acts of aggression"? Some would wish to define this so narrowly as to conclude that only a military assault upon the American homeland qualifies (as, for instance, Japan's bombing our ships at Pearl Harbor). But I beg to differ. Any act that is calculated to undermine America's core national interests, in my opinion, may invite a military response, if that seems like the most effective way to respond. The assertion that China's military expenditures are based upon "US and international intelligence sources" seems rather amorphous. How did these "sources" gather their data, anyway? And what was their methodology? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 30, 2014 10:51:43 GMT
I appreciate your noting what your state constitution says about the matter of conscription into the state militia. It is most informative. But, as I am 66 years of age (oh, and also disabled), it is entirely an academic matter to me what the Tennessee state constitution may say about it. I would be very careful about relying upon an "ever expanding understanding" of the US Constitution. It is precisely that sort of (infinitely flexible) view to which "Living Constitution" theorists adhere.
I merely note that when we address the delegated authority of government we need to address the total authority we grant to government which includes that authority we grant to the States as well as the Federal government. By analogy when we refer to the taxes people pay it relates to all of the taxes they pay and not just to a single specific tax.
I'm not an advocate of the "Living Constitution" as used by some theorists but instead I'm an advocate of applying what the US Constitution states by better understanding of what it states. As I've noted the 9th Amendment protects our unenumerated Rights. It literally states that but it doesn't define what Rights are protected because they are unenumerated. It's left to us to define what our Inalienable Rights are and there is a simple means of accomplishing that (i.e. apply the criteria required to establish an Inalienable Right).
A "Living Constitution" argument could be that "we didn't have the capability to fly in 1787 so we don't need Constitutional authorization to fund an independent United States Air Force." The "US Army Air Corps" was unquestionably Constitutional because it was a part of the US Army that is authorized by Article I Section 8 but not the USAF because there are no provisions for funding in the Constitution. Is if funded like the US Army with two-year appropriations or is it funded like the US Navy that don't have time constraints on appropriations, or does it have some other undefined funding requirement? We really don't know, do we? I seriously doubt we'd have any problems whatsoever on ratifying a Constitutional amendment to authorize the independent USAF but it has never been done because the politicians simply ignore the fact that the US Constitution doesn't authorize the USAF.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 30, 2014 11:18:35 GMT
The assertion that "[o]nly acts of aggression...can justify military force" necessarily begs the question: What, exactly, might qualify as "acts of aggression"? Some would wish to define this so narrowly as to conclude that only a military assault upon the American homeland qualifies (as, for instance, Japan's bombing our ships at Pearl Harbor). But I beg to differ. Any act that is calculated to undermine America's core national interests, in my opinion, may invite a military response, if that seems like the most effective way to respond. The assertion that China's military expenditures are based upon "US and international intelligence sources" seems rather amorphous. How did these "sources" gather their data, anyway? And what was their methodology?
The core national intests that the federal government should be addressing are explicitly stated in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution based upon what it is authorized to collect taxes for:
This is not the granting of unlimited authority of course as the actual roles and responsibilities that our government is to fulfill are enumerated in the US Constitution for example providing for the "postal roads" (interstate highway system) provides for the "general Welfare" of the United States. Civil rights legislation and action to provide "equal protection under the law" addresses requirements imposed by the 14th Amendment.
Additionally our government is contrained by the treaties it ratifies and the laws it passes and we should note that a treaty takes precedent over an action of Congress (obviously the Congress could withdraw us from the treaty). Foremost among our treaty obligations are our obligations to comply with the United Nations Charter that contains these provisions in Article 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 30, 2014 19:02:08 GMT
I appreciate your noting what your state constitution says about the matter of conscription into the state militia. It is most informative. But, as I am 66 years of age (oh, and also disabled), it is entirely an academic matter to me what the Tennessee state constitution may say about it. I would be very careful about relying upon an "ever expanding understanding" of the US Constitution. It is precisely that sort of (infinitely flexible) view to which "Living Constitution" theorists adhere.
I merely note that when we address the delegated authority of government we need to address the total authority we grant to government which includes that authority we grant to the States as well as the Federal government. By analogy when we refer to the taxes people pay it relates to all of the taxes they pay and not just to a single specific tax.
I'm not an advocate of the "Living Constitution" as used by some theorists but instead I'm an advocate of applying what the US Constitution states by better understanding of what it states. As I've noted the 9th Amendment protects our unenumerated Rights. It literally states that but it doesn't define what Rights are protected because they are unenumerated. It's left to us to define what our Inalienable Rights are and there is a simple means of accomplishing that (i.e. apply the criteria required to establish an Inalienable Right).
A "Living Constitution" argument could be that "we didn't have the capability to fly in 1787 so we don't need Constitutional authorization to fund an independent United States Air Force." The "US Army Air Corps" was unquestionably Constitutional because it was a part of the US Army that is authorized by Article I Section 8 but not the USAF because there are no provisions for funding in the Constitution. Is if funded like the US Army with two-year appropriations or is it funded like the US Navy that don't have time constraints on appropriations, or does it have some other undefined funding requirement? We really don't know, do we? I seriously doubt we'd have any problems whatsoever on ratifying a Constitutional amendment to authorize the independent USAF but it has never been done because the politicians simply ignore the fact that the US Constitution doesn't authorize the USAF.
It is entirely possible, of course, that Congress has felt no burning desire to propose such a constitutional amendment, since there would almost certainly be no "problems whatsoever" as regarding its ratification. (By analogy, I learned in the 1970s--I forget the exact year, although I believe it was in the early '70s--that my home state of Tennesse still had a law on the books that requires every vehicle to display a red flag on its trunk, in order to keep from scaring the horses. Don't ask me how that was supposed to work; I really have no idea. Anyway, the law is still on the books, so far as I know--at least, I have never heard of its being repealed--but it is certainly not enforced. Sometimes, in other words, the status wuo is left unchanged, if there seems to be no compelling need to alter it.) |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 30, 2014 20:03:45 GMT
ShivaTD,
For some (inexplicable) reason, I am now unable to respond to your post. Whenever I attempt to do so, I receive the message, "Your word count is below the limit of 10 words set for this forum"--even though that is untrue. And I am not doing the copy-and-paste thing--when I do, I receive that same message; and I must re-type one word contained therein, in order to obviate the problem--but that is simply not the case here. I have absolutely no idea as to what may be causing this glitch.
Below, however, is my response to your most recent post:
Suppose, for instance, that Iran were to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, in order to strangle the West (and particularly the US), which is still very dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. (Yes, I believe the Keystone Pipeline should be approved and fracking should go forth undeterred; but that is another matter, and I would not wish to digress.) Do you believe that it is a core interest of the US to re-open that Strait immediately, using the Sixth Fleet however it might be necessary?
As for the UN, I continue to agree, wholeheartedly, with the 1960s-era bumper sticker that declared, “Get the US out of the UN, and get the UN out of the US!”
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 31, 2014 11:42:25 GMT
Suppose, for instance, that Iran were to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, in order to strangle the West (and particularly the US), which is still very dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. (Yes, I believe the Keystone Pipeline should be approved and fracking should go forth undeterred; but that is another matter, and I would not wish to digress.) Do you believe that it is a core interest of the US to re-open that Strait immediately, using the Sixth Fleet however it might be necessary? As for the UN, I continue to agree, wholeheartedly, with the 1960s-era bumper sticker that declared, “Get the US out of the UN, and get the UN out of the US!”
I always wonder why some are opposed to an international organization dedicated to peace through diplomacy that is prohibited by it's own charter from intervening in the sovereign affairs of a nation with rare exceptions where international peace is threatened. The UN does not, for example, have any authority related to private firearms ownership in the US which have protections under the 2nd Amendment according to the UN Charter itself. The greatest single problem with the United Nations is the veto power of the five permanent members that have been historically used for nefarious political purposes.
One-half of the Strait of Hormuz lies within Iranian territorial waters and the other half is within the territorial waters of Oman-UAE. Iran could certainly restrict shipping on it's half the the Straits and be within it's rights under international law from what I understand but it could not block shipping through the Oman-IAE half of the Strait. Of course infringing upon the territorial waters of Oman-UAE would be an act of war against Oman-UAE that Oman-UAE could respond to or call upon the UN for assistance. Logically this would be of a greater concern for the Middle East oil exporting nations and the EU than it would be for the US but based upon a UN Security Council authorization calling for the use of military force (other than that already granted to Oman-UAE under Article 51 to respond the a direct attack against it pending UNSC responding) the US could send naval forces to respond. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait would certainly be more interested in addressing this than the United States although Saudi Arabia could simply choose to export oil through the Red Sea.
Now if Oman, the UAE and Iran decided to mutually block international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz I believe it would be within their sovereign rights as nations but would ask if they are a part of another UN sanctioned international treaty that requires allowing passage through the Straits. If they are then, once again, the United Nations Security Council could intervene. The UN often responds to violations of international law established by treaties (except when blocked from doing so by veto threat from any of the five permanent members).
Of course the example provided omits the key problem related to Iran which is the nuclear threat to nations of the Middle East by Israel's nuclear weapons. The UN has sponsored the Middle East WMD Free-Zone proposal for decades which would ban all WMD's, including nuclear weapons, from the Middle East but Israel refuses to become a party to such a treaty. Israel's possession of nuclear weapons violates the NPT and although Israel is not a member of the NPT the treaty itself calls upon enforcement by those nations that are related to non-member nations. Infortunately the United States has blocked UNSC sanctions against Israel that could force it to dismantle it's nuclear arsenal.
As I've stated the veto power is the primary problem with the UN that prevents it from fulfilling it's Charter principles of peace through diplomacy and non-military actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 31, 2014 11:53:55 GMT
It is entirely possible, of course, that Congress has felt no burning desire to propose such a constitutional amendment, since there would almost certainly be no "problems whatsoever" as regarding its ratification. (By analogy, I learned in the 1970s--I forget the exact year, although I believe it was in the early '70s--that my home state of Tennesse still had a law on the books that requires every vehicle to display a red flag on its trunk, in order to keep from scaring the horses. Don't ask me how that was supposed to work; I really have no idea. Anyway, the law is still on the books, so far as I know--at least, I have never heard of its being repealed--but it is certainly not enforced. Sometimes, in other words, the status wuo is left unchanged, if there seems to be no compelling need to alter it.)
I don't believe there would be a problem in ratifying a Constitutional Amendment that limited appropriations to two year but there could be for one that provides for unrestricted appropriations like the US Navy has. The problem today is we don't know if appropriations are limited to two years or if Congress can make long term appropriations to fund the USAF because it doesn't exist under the US Constitution as an independent military force.
BTW The case of the Tennesse Governor not enforcing the law requiring a flag be flown on vehicles is an example of executive power (discretion) that is fully Constitutional the same as President Obama using executive power (discretion) in the enforcement of laws passed by Congress. He doesn't want to waste limited law enforcement upon enforcement of a stupid law that serves no real purpose and the Tennesse Governor is actually ignoring the law as opposed to what Obama has done by deferring prosecution of our immigration laws for two years for children raised in the US but that were brought here illegally by their parents. The chief executive of the State or the United States has extensive executive powers (discretion) when it comes to what is best for the people of the State or the people of the nation respectively.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 1, 2014 1:23:46 GMT
Suppose, for instance, that Iran were to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, in order to strangle the West (and particularly the US), which is still very dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. (Yes, I believe the Keystone Pipeline should be approved and fracking should go forth undeterred; but that is another matter, and I would not wish to digress.) Do you believe that it is a core interest of the US to re-open that Strait immediately, using the Sixth Fleet however it might be necessary? As for the UN, I continue to agree, wholeheartedly, with the 1960s-era bumper sticker that declared, “Get the US out of the UN, and get the UN out of the US!”
I always wonder why some are opposed to an international organization dedicated to peace through diplomacy that is prohibited by it's own charter from intervening in the sovereign affairs of a nation with rare exceptions where international peace is threatened. The UN does not, for example, have any authority related to private firearms ownership in the US which have protections under the 2nd Amendment according to the UN Charter itself. The greatest single problem with the United Nations is the veto power of the five permanent members that have been historically used for nefarious political purposes.
One-half of the Strait of Hormuz lies within Iranian territorial waters and the other half is within the territorial waters of Oman-UAE. Iran could certainly restrict shipping on it's half the the Straits and be within it's rights under international law from what I understand but it could not block shipping through the Oman-IAE half of the Strait. Of course infringing upon the territorial waters of Oman-UAE would be an act of war against Oman-UAE that Oman-UAE could respond to or call upon the UN for assistance. Logically this would be of a greater concern for the Middle East oil exporting nations and the EU than it would be for the US but based upon a UN Security Council authorization calling for the use of military force (other than that already granted to Oman-UAE under Article 51 to respond the a direct attack against it pending UNSC responding) the US could send naval forces to respond. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait would certainly be more interested in addressing this than the United States although Saudi Arabia could simply choose to export oil through the Red Sea.
Now if Oman, the UAE and Iran decided to mutually block international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz I believe it would be within their sovereign rights as nations but would ask if they are a part of another UN sanctioned international treaty that requires allowing passage through the Straits. If they are then, once again, the United Nations Security Council could intervene. The UN often responds to violations of international law established by treaties (except when blocked from doing so by veto threat from any of the five permanent members).
Of course the example provided omits the key problem related to Iran which is the nuclear threat to nations of the Middle East by Israel's nuclear weapons. The UN has sponsored the Middle East WMD Free-Zone proposal for decades which would ban all WMD's, including nuclear weapons, from the Middle East but Israel refuses to become a party to such a treaty. Israel's possession of nuclear weapons violates the NPT and although Israel is not a member of the NPT the treaty itself calls upon enforcement by those nations that are related to non-member nations. Infortunately the United States has blocked UNSC sanctions against Israel that could force it to dismantle it's nuclear arsenal.
As I've stated the veto power is the primary problem with the UN that prevents it from fulfilling it's Charter principles of peace through diplomacy and non-military actions.
I should probably begin by noting that "international law" is merely a polite fiction. Law, in order to be meaningful-- any law--necessarily requires a law enforcer. And there simply is no enforcer for "international law." Nor would I desire for there to be one. To declare that the Middle East should be made a nuclear-free zone is to assert that Israel should be required to give up what it already possesses (i.e. nuclear weapons) in exchange for what Iran is merely pursuing (and which Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and probably Jordan are also likely to pursue, should Iran get its way). And that does not strike me as a particularly good deal, from Israel's perspective. I simply cannot imagine that Oman and the United Arab Emerates might join with Iran to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. But any nation that were to intentionally disrupt the necessities of modern Western life should not rely upon the niceties of their "sovereign rights." Rather, the US Sixth Fleet should unleash its unrelenting fury upon it. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 1, 2014 1:34:57 GMT
It is entirely possible, of course, that Congress has felt no burning desire to propose such a constitutional amendment, since there would almost certainly be no "problems whatsoever" as regarding its ratification. (By analogy, I learned in the 1970s--I forget the exact year, although I believe it was in the early '70s--that my home state of Tennesse still had a law on the books that requires every vehicle to display a red flag on its trunk, in order to keep from scaring the horses. Don't ask me how that was supposed to work; I really have no idea. Anyway, the law is still on the books, so far as I know--at least, I have never heard of its being repealed--but it is certainly not enforced. Sometimes, in other words, the status wuo is left unchanged, if there seems to be no compelling need to alter it.)
I don't believe there would be a problem in ratifying a Constitutional Amendment that limited appropriations to two year but there could be for one that provides for unrestricted appropriations like the US Navy has. The problem today is we don't know if appropriations are limited to two years or if Congress can make long term appropriations to fund the USAF because it doesn't exist under the US Constitution as an independent military force.
BTW The case of the Tennesse Governor not enforcing the law requiring a flag be flown on vehicles is an example of executive power (discretion) that is fully Constitutional the same as President Obama using executive power (discretion) in the enforcement of laws passed by Congress. He doesn't want to waste limited law enforcement upon enforcement of a stupid law that serves no real purpose and the Tennesse Governor is actually ignoring the law as opposed to what Obama has done by deferring prosecution of our immigration laws for two years for children raised in the US but that were brought here illegally by their parents. The chief executive of the State or the United States has extensive executive powers (discretion) when it comes to what is best for the people of the State or the people of the nation respectively.
Actually, I am not at all certain that it is the governor who is responsible for this (entirely sensible) non-enforcement of the law to which I alluded. I would just guess--and admittedly, I do not know with any certainty--that a large majority of policemen and policewomen are ignorant of the existence of this law; and, that if they knew of the law and actually enforced it, their respective precinct captains would go ballistic. As for the matter of what to do with the children of illegals--the so-called "anchor babies"--that is a very sticky wicket, indeed. One does not wish to be thoroughly calloused about it (how might this be the childrens' fault, anyway?); but one also does not want to reward the cynical behavior of these mothers. So I am still working on this one. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 1, 2014 13:17:46 GMT
I always wonder why some are opposed to an international organization dedicated to peace through diplomacy that is prohibited by it's own charter from intervening in the sovereign affairs of a nation with rare exceptions where international peace is threatened. The UN does not, for example, have any authority related to private firearms ownership in the US which have protections under the 2nd Amendment according to the UN Charter itself. The greatest single problem with the United Nations is the veto power of the five permanent members that have been historically used for nefarious political purposes.
One-half of the Strait of Hormuz lies within Iranian territorial waters and the other half is within the territorial waters of Oman-UAE. Iran could certainly restrict shipping on it's half the the Straits and be within it's rights under international law from what I understand but it could not block shipping through the Oman-IAE half of the Strait. Of course infringing upon the territorial waters of Oman-UAE would be an act of war against Oman-UAE that Oman-UAE could respond to or call upon the UN for assistance. Logically this would be of a greater concern for the Middle East oil exporting nations and the EU than it would be for the US but based upon a UN Security Council authorization calling for the use of military force (other than that already granted to Oman-UAE under Article 51 to respond the a direct attack against it pending UNSC responding) the US could send naval forces to respond. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait would certainly be more interested in addressing this than the United States although Saudi Arabia could simply choose to export oil through the Red Sea.
Now if Oman, the UAE and Iran decided to mutually block international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz I believe it would be within their sovereign rights as nations but would ask if they are a part of another UN sanctioned international treaty that requires allowing passage through the Straits. If they are then, once again, the United Nations Security Council could intervene. The UN often responds to violations of international law established by treaties (except when blocked from doing so by veto threat from any of the five permanent members).
Of course the example provided omits the key problem related to Iran which is the nuclear threat to nations of the Middle East by Israel's nuclear weapons. The UN has sponsored the Middle East WMD Free-Zone proposal for decades which would ban all WMD's, including nuclear weapons, from the Middle East but Israel refuses to become a party to such a treaty. Israel's possession of nuclear weapons violates the NPT and although Israel is not a member of the NPT the treaty itself calls upon enforcement by those nations that are related to non-member nations. Infortunately the United States has blocked UNSC sanctions against Israel that could force it to dismantle it's nuclear arsenal.
As I've stated the veto power is the primary problem with the UN that prevents it from fulfilling it's Charter principles of peace through diplomacy and non-military actions.
I should probably begin by noting that "international law" is merely a polite fiction. Law, in order to be meaningful-- any law--necessarily requires a law enforcer. And there simply is no enforcer for "international law." Nor would I desire for there to be one. To declare that the Middle East should be made a nuclear-free zone is to assert that Israel should be required to give up what it already possesses (i.e. nuclear weapons) in exchange for what Iran is merely pursuing (and which Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and probably Jordan are also likely to pursue, should Iran get its way). And that does not strike me as a particularly good deal, from Israel's perspective. I simply cannot imagine that Oman and the United Arab Emerates might join with Iran to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. But any nation that were to intentionally disrupt the necessities of modern Western life should not rely upon the niceties of their "sovereign rights." Rather, the US Sixth Fleet should unleash its unrelenting fury upon it.
International law is established by the voluntary treaties that nations agree to abide by and there is an international enforcement agency. The United Nations Security Council is the enforcement agency and all members of the United Nations have agreed voluntarily to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. The only problem, as noted, is the veto power of the five permanent members that often prevent the UN Security Council to respond to violations of international law based upon the political agenda of a single nation. The "enforcement of law" should be based upon the law and not based upon political agendas.
The NPT is a treaty with the purpose of preventing nuclear weapon proliferation. Nuclear war is not acceptable, period. It is bad enough that five nations are allowed to possess nuclear weapons under the NPT but the intent is that these nations will never use those weapons except as a deterent to nuclear war. In short if any nation uses nuclear weapons it really is the responsibility of the five authorized nuclear weapons nations to respond with a nuclear retalitory strike against the nation that violates the prohibition agianst the use of nuclear weapons even if it is one of the five authorized nuclear weapon nations. For example if the UK used a nuclear weapon the US would be required to retaliate against it with a nuclear response. At least that's the principle behind the authorization for five nations to possess nuclear weapons. There is only one "political" consideration and that is that nuclear weapons cannot be used backed by the threat that if a nations used them then they will be subjected to a nuclear retalitory response.
If we allow rogue nuclear nations such as Pakistan, India, N Korea, and Israel to possess nuclear weapons then we must allow other nations to develop and possess nuclear weapons as a deterent against nuclear attack by these rogue nuclear weapons. We cannot have a double-standard when it comes to nuclear weapons. Either we have the "five" authorized nuclear weapon nations where the sole purpose is to retaliate if any nation used a nuclear weapon or every nation can logically develop and possess nuclear weapons to use as a deterent against another nation using nuclear weapons against them.
Israel does not possess nuclear weapons as a deterent against a nuclear weapon attack and doesn't require nuclear weapons so long as the five authorized nuclear weapon nations fulfill their responsibility to respond if another nation uses a nuclear weapon against Israel.
No nation is entitled to or has any "rights" related to the natural resources of another nation.
While it might be unimaginable for Oman and the United Arab Emerates to join with Iran to blockade the Strait of Hormuz that would not prevent the export of oil from the Middle East. Saudi Arabia could build a pipeline to the Red Sea to allow Middle East oil to leave the Middle East in it's territorial waters through the Red Sea via the Straits of Tiran by-passing any need for exports through the Strait of Hormuz. A war over the closure of the Straits of Hormuz would fundamentally be a war based upon corporatism and corporate profits and not based upon any other reason. We, the United States, certianly don't have any "rights" related to Middle East oil or over the territorial waters of other nations.
As noted though passage through the Straits of Hormuz might be protected by treaty (International Law) that would be subject to the enforcement by the United Nations Security Council but, of course, if the US withdrew from the UN then the US would not be protected by the International Law established by treaty and would have no authority to intervene at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 1, 2014 13:32:49 GMT
People like to condemn the United Nations but I have yet to see anyone cite provisions in the United Nations Charter that they actually object to excluding the permanent status and veto power of in the Security Council that often prevents enforcement of the Charter based upon nefarious political agendas.
The problem isn't the United Nations but instead the problem is with those nations that don't abide by the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 1, 2014 16:56:22 GMT
I should probably begin by noting that "international law" is merely a polite fiction. Law, in order to be meaningful-- any law--necessarily requires a law enforcer. And there simply is no enforcer for "international law." Nor would I desire for there to be one. To declare that the Middle East should be made a nuclear-free zone is to assert that Israel should be required to give up what it already possesses (i.e. nuclear weapons) in exchange for what Iran is merely pursuing (and which Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and probably Jordan are also likely to pursue, should Iran get its way). And that does not strike me as a particularly good deal, from Israel's perspective. I simply cannot imagine that Oman and the United Arab Emerates might join with Iran to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. But any nation that were to intentionally disrupt the necessities of modern Western life should not rely upon the niceties of their "sovereign rights." Rather, the US Sixth Fleet should unleash its unrelenting fury upon it.
International law is established by the voluntary treaties that nations agree to abide by and there is an international enforcement agency. The United Nations Security Council is the enforcement agency and all members of the United Nations have agreed voluntarily to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. The only problem, as noted, is the veto power of the five permanent members that often prevent the UN Security Council to respond to violations of international law based upon the political agenda of a single nation. The "enforcement of law" should be based upon the law and not based upon political agendas.
The NPT is a treaty with the purpose of preventing nuclear weapon proliferation. Nuclear war is not acceptable, period. It is bad enough that five nations are allowed to possess nuclear weapons under the NPT but the intent is that these nations will never use those weapons except as a deterent to nuclear war. In short if any nation uses nuclear weapons it really is the responsibility of the five authorized nuclear weapons nations to respond with a nuclear retalitory strike against the nation that violates the prohibition agianst the use of nuclear weapons even if it is one of the five authorized nuclear weapon nations. For example if the UK used a nuclear weapon the US would be required to retaliate against it with a nuclear response. At least that's the principle behind the authorization for five nations to possess nuclear weapons. There is only one "political" consideration and that is that nuclear weapons cannot be used backed by the threat that if a nations used them then they will be subjected to a nuclear retalitory response.
If we allow rogue nuclear nations such as Pakistan, India, N Korea, and Israel to possess nuclear weapons then we must allow other nations to develop and possess nuclear weapons as a deterent against nuclear attack by these rogue nuclear weapons. We cannot have a double-standard when it comes to nuclear weapons. Either we have the "five" authorized nuclear weapon nations where the sole purpose is to retaliate if any nation used a nuclear weapon or every nation can logically develop and possess nuclear weapons to use as a deterent against another nation using nuclear weapons against them.
Israel does not possess nuclear weapons as a deterent against a nuclear weapon attack and doesn't require nuclear weapons so long as the five authorized nuclear weapon nations fulfill their responsibility to respond if another nation uses a nuclear weapon against Israel.
No nation is entitled to or has any "rights" related to the natural resources of another nation.
While it might be unimaginable for Oman and the United Arab Emerates to join with Iran to blockade the Strait of Hormuz that would not prevent the export of oil from the Middle East. Saudi Arabia could build a pipeline to the Red Sea to allow Middle East oil to leave the Middle East in it's territorial waters through the Red Sea via the Straits of Tiran by-passing any need for exports through the Strait of Hormuz. A war over the closure of the Straits of Hormuz would fundamentally be a war based upon corporatism and corporate profits and not based upon any other reason. We, the United States, certianly don't have any "rights" related to Middle East oil or over the territorial waters of other nations.
As noted though passage through the Straits of Hormuz might be protected by treaty (International Law) that would be subject to the enforcement by the United Nations Security Council but, of course, if the US withdrew from the UN then the US would not be protected by the International Law established by treaty and would have no authority to intervene at all.
Well, for starters, I should probably note that there is no higher authority for American actions (with regard to foreign policy, or anything else) than what is found in the US Constitution; and, failing the Constitution's having anything to say about the matter at hand, there is then no higher authority for American foreign-policy actions than the US Congress and the president of the United States. Not the UN. And not any other transnational body, either. As a pracitcal matter, I simply cannot imagine that you might suppose that the US should ever nuke the UK (or any other ally) in response to any military actions that it might take, irrespective of any treaty. As for your observation that the United Nations Security Council is "the enforcement agency" for International Law, it begs the question: What sort of military, exactly, does this body have at its disposal, in order to be able to impose its collective will upon others? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 3, 2014 13:49:17 GMT
Well, for starters, I should probably note that there is no higher authority for American actions (with regard to foreign policy, or anything else) than what is found in the US Constitution; and, failing the Constitution's having anything to say about the matter at hand, there is then no higher authority for American foreign-policy actions than the US Congress and the president of the United States. Not the UN. And not any other transnational body, either. As a pracitcal matter, I simply cannot imagine that you might suppose that the US should ever nuke the UK (or any other ally) in response to any military actions that it might take, irrespective of any treaty. As for your observation that the United Nations Security Council is "the enforcement agency" for International Law, it begs the question: What sort of military, exactly, does this body have at its disposal, in order to be able to impose its collective will upon others?
The United State Constitution only applies to the United States (and government of the United States) and has no authority related to other nations or international affairs. While we can put forward our political beliefs based upon the the US Constitution the Constitution does not grant the US government any explicit authority over the actions of other nations and certainly doesn't grant any authority related to the sovereign affairs of other nations. By way of example based upon the authority of the US Constitution the United States has no authority to intevene in whether Iran seeks to produce an nuclear weapon or not. That is a sovereign affair of the country of Iran that is not governed by our Constitution or by our government.
Not only would I endorse the US launching a nuclear attack against the UK of it resorted to the use of nuclear weapons I'd demand it. I'll go one step further. If the US was to use nuclear weapons (except in retalliation to a nuclear attack against the United State or another nation) I would expect the other authorized nuclear weapon nations to retalliate with a nuclear strike against is. The use of nuclear weapons cannot be condoned by any nation and the only way to pragmatically prevent that is with the threat of a nuclear retallitory strike if any nation does use nuclear weapons and that includes the UK and the US.
The UN doesn't require a formal military force based upon Article 2 Section 5.
If the United Nations Security Council authorizes the use of military force then it is a treaty obligation of the member nations to furnish that military force according to the UN Charter. Of course the use of military force should always be the very last option and would logically come after an extended economic boycott that isolates a nation completely where all member nations refuse to provide any assistance to the beligerant nation. No nation can actually exist without international trade in the modern world.
Once agian I hold the belief that all nations should abide by the international treaties they voluntarily become a party to. We know, for example, that China is providing or allowing many commodities into N Korea that are prohibited by UN sanctions and that would be grounds for imposing economic sanctions against China by the United Nations. Of course the "veto" power by China in the UNSC prevents this enforcement and as I noted it's the veto power that is the only real problem with the UN Charter.
|
|
