liberal left socialist pinkos

[gunflint]

BluesStringer,

Once I read "Green Party Socialist" I knew that I would not get involved in this discussion. Lead on.

[ishi]

Blues, I don't object to your strong disagreements with the things I say. I've already said that you made some interesting points that made me think and even re-evaluate some of my positions. The responses that you wrote to me were not wasted. I'm listening.

I've met some great friends on this forum and learned new things here, and if I didn't 'sleep with the enemy' that would never have happened.

[PascalFleischman]

Sometimes, sleeping with the enemy can be a thrill! Moving on.....

Maybe, someone could enlighten me as to the Constitutionality of our "conservative" President offering illegal immigrants amnesty? Perhaps we can find out where the gummint is supposed to provide education, health care, or retirement? Ol' Dubya seems to have fallen off that conservative wagon a long time ago....

[kwo51]

You know I support both of your right to believe anyway you choice. That is what it is all about.We all have the right to change also.The government has the power to make you do things at the point of the gun. Pay taxs,don't break the law all at gun point. The 2 amd. gives us that right also. An armed man is a free man an narmed man is a slave.

[ishi]

What, pray tell, "illegal war-making" is going on right now? Illegal by who's standards? Certainly not by US constitutional standards, as Congress was much more than simply "compliant" in authorizing military action in Iraq, they were direct participants, and just a gnat's-nose-hair from being completely unanimous. You must be referring to the war-making being illegal because we didn't prostrate ourselves in front of the UN General Assembly for any more than 14 months and beg for permission to defend what we, as a country and as a sovereign nation, believe to be in our own interests. Either way, your claim that the war we are engaged in is illegal rings hollow and inaccurate by any objective reading of any law that we are bound by or obligated to abide by.

...

It took awhile, but we finally found two things we can agree on, which should be illustrative of why I can't separate a liberal who believes in gun control from one who doesn't. If that liberal thinks it's illegal for Congress to authorize the President to go to war, then that liberal doesn't believe in the same Constitution that I do, no matter what their beliefs concerning the 2nd Amendment might be. War powers are succinctly and unambiguously described in The Constitution, and nothing that The President has done, nor anything that Congress authorized him to do, is in conflict with that description. Yet you want me and all conservatives to rally around the handful of liberals that claim to support gun rights, whilst we ignore their appalling lack of understanding such important constitutional issues as when it is or isn't legal to go to war? Sorry, no can do. I don't sleep with the enemy and I don't coddle liberals who try to make nice based on their perception that their acceptance of one hot-button issue is enough to bridge the gap between our respective ideologies. For me, it just isn't.

Blues

This seems like something I should address.

The claim here, if I understand it, is that I have no understanding of the Constitution, and therefore no fellowship, no cooperation, and no meaningful dialogue is possible with such an unreasonable and ignorant person. I called the Iraq war illegal, and you say I don't believe in the same Constitution you do. I'd better back up my claim with some facts.

The trail starts with Article VI, Clause 2 of the constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This clause gives treaties the force of law, even up to the point of overriding presidential and congressional powers of war-making. Think this is a bad idea? You wouldn't be the first. In 1954, President Eisenhower just barely succeeded in stopping the Bricker amendment, which sought to change the constitution to prevent treaties from having such powerful force of law. But, it's still there and it's still the law. I'm looking at the same Constitution you are.

The treaty that I'm referring to is the UN Charter, which was ratified by Congress and entered into force in October 1945.

We could have a reasonable debate over whether or not we should pull out of the United Nations. Ron Paul recently gave some interesting arguments to that effect. I'm not convinced, but it's something that's worth talking about. What is clear is that until the day we do withdraw from the UN, Article VI of the Constitution gives the UN Charter the force of law. This isn't a matter of opinion, or belief, or faith - it's the Constitution, the same one you're reading.

The Charter prohibits wars of aggression - wars not in response to an attack. Iraq didn't attack us. Our strike was pre-emptive, and the Charter prohibits that. We never got war clearance from the Security Council. This makes the war illegal.

Was the invasion immoral? unnecessary? I definitely think so, but people I respect have argued otherwise. What's clear to me, and what I claimed, is that it was illegal because of our treaty obligations.

Also, if you want to re-animate the Bricker amendment you may find me campaigning along side you. I dislike the WTO as much as you dislike the UN, and I'd be willing to lose the one to get rid of the other.

So, let's cooperate as far as our interests converge, or at least not hinder each other's efforts towards the same goal. We may find more in common than we ever expected. Ambivalence I'll settle for.

ishi

[BluesStringer]

Ishi, I will never consider any law that originates in the UN as superior to laws that our elected representatives author, pass and get signed into law by The President. Article VI is not a suicide pact which mandates that we relinquish our sovereign and autonomous rights to govern ourselves as we see fit. That appears to be how you're reading it though. So far, you have tried to convince us that we, as conservatives, are detrimental to the 2nd Amendment "movement" (whatever that is), and then in just a couple more posts you're arguing in favor of tighter restrictions on CWP applicants. Now you're trying to convince us that any decision(s) that our elected government makes concerning armed conflict should be viewed as subservient to the UN Charter, which is administered and enforced completely devoid of American citizens' input/influence/involvement??? We should cede our sovereignty to a gaggle of dictators, communists and rabid anti-Americans??? And in suggesting this sovereignty-suicide, you want us to believe that our own Constitution mandates that we do it to ourselves??? What happens when the UN decides to amend their charter to include the abolition of private ownership of guns? Would it be illegal for us to collectively give them the one-finger salute and go about our lives as our Constitution provides for? I mean, the UN is a government unto itself and can write any liberty-killing thing it wants to and then do the same thing you've done here, point to The Constitution of The United States of America and say, "Looky here at Article VI! You signed the treaty, so now we're in charge!!"

You're saying that The Constitution can be used against itself to render itself void and meaningless! Worse than being circular logic, it's unmitigated pretzel logic. A riddle wrapped up in an enigma. Is this what they teach in American schools these days? I'm not trying to be a smart-a$$ by asking that question. I am seriously at a loss to understand where this kind of thinking comes from.

You keep talking about "common ground" and how an unyielding conservative view gets in the way of finding it. There is not, and never will be, any common ground between those who strongly believe in a sacrosanct originalist reading of The Constitution, and those who believe The Founding Fathers were so dimwitted as to put a poison pill in it that would inevitably lead to its own self-destruction. Our sovereignty cannot be negotiated away in a treaty!

Blues

[mot mayhem]

Another plank in the Ektarr for President platform: Return to the Gold Standard!

I would run for president, but would never win. Why, you ask? ......

.....Because then, nobody would have anything to ***** about. Except for all the whiny liberals, and I would deport them along w/ the illegals !

[ishi]

Blues, you've given reasons why Article VI section 2 should be changed, and reasons why we should pull out of the UN. Article VI explicitly grants treaties supremecy over US law, and wishing it were otherwise doesn't work. That's why proponents of the 1954 Bricker Amendment (a strong bipartisan effort, by the way!) tried to change it. If you don't like it, try to change it again! It might well work this time.

[Ektarr]

Ektarr for President: U.N. out of the U.S. -- U.S. out of the U.N.
Further, please pay your accumulated fines as you exit, but special consideration will be give those who board the plane with an ACLU lawyer under each arm.

[Torch]

BluesStringer,

How in the world do you survive in Madison? I imagine that you sometimes feel like a rock in the middle of a stream trying not to get wet.

ishi, I admire your candor and your RKBA positions but I don't think that they are compatible with your political party of choice. You're not alone though. I align with BluesStringer very closely politically and I feel increasingly disconnected with my former political party of choice, the Republicans (at least at the federal level).