But not because the wars are undeclared, which was the point at issue.
--- Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> Justin wrote:
> >
> >...I wish that I also thought it was constitutional
> for
> >Congress to end undeclared wars.
>
> Of course Congress has the constitutional authority
> to end any war,
> declared or not, by a two-thirds vote of both
> houses. Of course the
> present congress is as far short of a two-thirds
> majority as the
> Dumbocrats are short of two-thirds of a backbone.
>
>
>
> >I'm not an originalist, but the framers...
>
> "Framers?" Nonsense. The constitution was not
> "framed"--it was
> "Ordained and Established" by "We the People." Talk
> of "framers"
> is and can be nothing but an excuse for robed
> reactionary lawyers
> to disregard the "supreme law of the land" on the
> basis of what
> they claim some slaveowner thought in 1788.
>
> >...certainly didn't contemplate the circumvention
> of Congress'[s] power to
> >declare war by the simple expedient of not
> declaring
> >war. However there's another doctrine that says,
> in
> >essence, long-unchallenged common practices
> _become_
> >constitutional, so my guess is that after almost 60
> >years, it's constitutional for the president to
> >conduct undeclared wars...
>
> Another "doctrine" claiming that judges can overrule
> the supreme law
> of the land by refusing to enforce it for a long
> enough time (they can
> do it so easily under *stare decisis* for a
> blatantly wrong ruling, or even
> more easily by simply refusing "standing" to any
> challenger). According
> to this, racial discrimination would forever be
> legally enforceable and
> there would be no right to birth control, abortion,
> sexual privacy, and
> much else. Moreover, in the past "almost 60 years"
> unconstitutional
> presidential wars have been repeatedly and most
> vociferously
> challenged, though for some reason the courts have
> always found
> ways to deny "standing" to the challengers.
> Nevertheless, conducting
> an unconstitutional war (though only in Cambodia)
> was foremost
> among the charges in the impeachment proceeding
> against Nixon.
> Alas, the Dumbocrats on the Judiciary Committee
> declined to press
> that charge, recalling the immortal words of Gibbon
> on the destitution
> of Pope John XXIII (Cossa, not Roncalli):
>
> "All the serious charges having been dropped, the
> Holy Father was
> convicted of sodomy, simony, incest, and murder."
>
> Shane Mage
>
> "This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is
> and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in
> measures and going out
> in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 30
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265