In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
A Better Country
slumlord44
Member Posts: 3,702 ✭✭✭
A question for all you guys who think we should have a nation without rules. What better country should we move to?
Comments
That way, we that value Freedom would not have to listen and watch as you take America down the path of Fascism/Socialism..along with your fellow travelers in the media, big business, and government.
A question for all you guys who think we should have a nation without rules.
Who the hell says this???
We should be a nation of rules, all of which are malum in se... never malum prohibitum.
Switzerland might be a good place to go. Emulating the Swiss would be to our benefit.
A question for all you guys who think we should have a nation without rules. What better country should we move to?
Who thinks we should have a nation without rules? Society needs certain rules.
What we do not need is a predatory government and a nation of do-gooders attempting to mold everyone in their own image, or forcing everyone to live by their standards.
No need to move. America, in its original form, is the greatest nation ever.
A question for all you guys who think we should have a nation without rules. What better country should we move to?
I've heard of no one on here suggesting anarchy. I have heard of no one suggesting no laws, period.
However, the prevailing sentiment seems to appear that most want the government to:
1) Stop trampling on the rights of the citizens
2) Operate under control of "the people", that control being authorized by the Constitution of the Unites States of America. It seems the government has forgotten who "the boss" is.[:(!]
Better country? Where? the United States is the greatest, bar none. Why else do you think everyone is scurrying to get here?
I assume that you are suggesting that those that support a return to the intent and wording of the 2nd Amendment are advocating a nation without rules.
I would suggest you re-consider your entire thought process. We have rules. These are established in the U.S. Constitution. The restrictions and bans that have been passed are outside of the rules. These laws, with innumerable others, are proof positive that we currently are living in a nation run by emotion and the tug on the heart-string, instead of being a nation of law.
You reject the rule of law as established in the Constitution, yet accept the rules that are placed upon us by lawless legislatures. Just who is it then that is advocating a nation without rules?
edit: BTT
Slumlord, I am still curious as to how insisting our government be restrained by the U.S. Constitution equates to a 'country without rules'.
Brad Steele
You can go to Russia or the extremely hot place that some peole think exists. I will stay here because despite it's problems it is the best country in the world. You think I am taking the country down the path to socialism? You credit me with way too much power.I hate socialism as much as anyone. You should read my high school term paper from 1962. This country has been headed for socialism since FDR. Socialism failed in Russia and will eventualy fail here.
Don
Just trying to get a discussion going. The courts and judges have screwed up a perfectly good system over the years. Crazy laws, loss of freedom, too many taxes, etc, etc, etc.
You didn't answer Dons' question..and you didn't tell the truth about your position about Fascism/Socialism.
You support gun laws .plain and simple.
That is the definition of insanity.
Allowing a government that is well on its way to going bad that kind of power over citizens can have no other explanation then insanity.
While NONE of us have the power, individually, to alter the course of events.agreeing with the Beast over gun control is aiding and abetting the enemy.and ANY that wish to restrict, heavily regulate, and ban weapons is absolutely the enemy to freedom.
quote:Originally posted by slumlord44
A question for all you guys who think we should have a nation without rules.
Who the hell says this???
We should be a nation of rules, all of which are malum in se... never malum prohibitum.
Switzerland might be a good place to go. Emulating the Swiss would be to our benefit.
Almost brings a tear to my eye (humor[:I]) seeing someone else who gets the distinction and uses the terms.
Truth spoken gunphreak.
You know nothing about me. Calling me a liar and insane is realy mature. The sad and tragic part is we actualy agree on a lot of things. Sad part is that anyone who does not agree with you 100% is dead wrong or crazy. The difference between us is that I always try to find a common ground with people and you can not stand anyone who does not totaly agree with you. My short list of people I detest can be counted on the fingers of one hand with a couple left over. I am sure your list is a lot longer. Hate is a lousy way to spend a life time. No one seemed to catch the point that I believe that our government WILL fail. The question is when. I for one want to be well armed if I am still alive when the fall comes. I think this is one point you could agree with me on. Interesting to see if you would ever admit it though.
As far as Dons question, I agree in with him in theory. Agree with it or not, like it or not, there have always been limits on freedoms. Religion has limits. Free speech has limits. The right to assemble is limited to peacable assembly. There will forever be disagreements over ANY restriction
What is the discussion about ..unless you support gun control ? Gun control is an vital part of Fascism/Socialism...NOT the Founders form of a Republic.
Unless you support those forms of government.gun control ought NOT be a part of your thought processes.
Now you are saying that you DON'T support gun control ?
Individual freedom ought to first and foremost ..within the confines of the Constitution.
"Want to be well armed if the government fails".well SURE ..that is what this discussion is all about !!
You ALREADY are limited in that department.SEVERLY ..by the laws already OUT there ..laws driving up the cost of many weapons 10-fold in the last several years.weapons that would be invaluable in the event of trouble.
Using the pretext that since the government has managed to restrict EVERY freedom we have is not really a good defense, as far as I am concerned.I don't discuss the Beasts' ravenous appetite for our freedoms on EVERY front is because I am ONE MAN ..and cannot divide myself a hundred ways to study and be familiar with all encroaches.
The stand I have taken is;
I want to be ell armed when the government turns to tyranny ..and they are well on their way to doing so. Allowing the steady erosion of rights.as the NRA does ..is merely ensuring that when the day comes ..we will be armed with single shot muskets.
I repeat;
Given the history of the Second Amendment, given the REASONS for that Document.support for gun control is INSANITY ..as are those that advocate it.
See, we do agree on at least one point. We both want to be well armed when the brown smelly stuff hits the fan.
I do not recall ever saying I support gun control. You are convinced the NRA is a bad thing. I think they are a good thing. The fact that you do not agree with me on some issues does not make you a bad person in my mind. I called my state legislators today to protest a proposed assualt weapons ban and a ban on private gun sales in Illinois. You may think this is a waste of time but I feel I have to at least try to do what I can. Would I bother to make these calls if I supported gun control?
Let us cut to the chase;
Do you believe that the Federal Government has the authority under the Constitution to regulate weapons or the citizens that own them ?
Notice that I didn't say 'power'..for just as ANY tyrant, they will murder you for disobeying.
Please don't tell me all about how they are doing it, and have been for 80 years..just a simple question, simply answered.
You ask this question;
quote:A question for all you guys who think we should have a nation without rules.
Did you just read TRFoxs and Triple223s crap and decide that they were telling the truth about those of us supporting the Constitution ?
The Constitution IS the law of the land...or would be, if the corruption in Washington was gone...and the Constitution layS HEAVY burdens of personal responsibilities on individuals.
Freedom ain't free...and it comes with certain inplicit duties as a citizen.
We should be a nation of rules, all of which are malum in se... never malum prohibitum.
Wow, thanks.
I learned something new today. Cool.
Why in heel are you and I arguing ?
You ask this question;
quote:A question for all you guys who think we should have a nation without rules.
Did you just read TRFoxs and Triple223s crap and decide that they were telling the truth about those of us supporting the Constitution ?
The Constitution IS the law of the land...or would be, if the corruption in Washington was gone...and the Constitution layS HEAVY burdens of personal responsibilities on individuals.
Freedom ain't free...and it comes with certain inplicit duties as a citizen.
....and it should be instilled in the mind of every free loving person !
Enough said on this topic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have been trying to convince you for some time that we agree many things. The problem is that the genie has been out of the bottle for way too long. The courts have screwed things up so bad it is a mess. They have also basicly made a lot of their own laws through interpertation, which they also do not have the power to do. We need to go back to individuals being held responsible for their own actions. This includes our elected officials.
We need to quit argueing about the things we disagree on and will never agree on, and concentrate on the things we can agree on. I have only been watching and participating in this forum for a few months but from my point of view most of you guys actually agree on a lot of things. The most important being that we need less gun control. While I would love to see the 2nd ammendment interperted literaly, this is not going to happen. I for one am doing what I can to try to make it better. I have not seen anyone on this forum yet that looks like a Clinton or Obama suporter. McCaine is far from my choice, but he will still be better than the two Democratic choices.
I have a good friend and fellow gun nut that is convinced that all guns will all eventualy be outlawed. I keep telling him that that is the kind of attitude that will allow it to happen. We must all keep our eyes on the objective, rather than fighting amongst ourselves.
IF your government governed by the laws and rules as written in your constitution and your bill of rights your country would beat ANY other country hands down.
somewhere along the line though your government has forgotten what is written in your constitution. no law should ever be passed that over rides a countries constitution, but unfortanetly your government has.
even though it has done that, the u.s. would still have more legal protections and guarantee more rights for its citizens than any other country that i can think of. if there is any other country that has a better constitution and bill of rights, plesae feel free to educate me.
i know that my own countries constitution is mostly about rights that the commonwealth has verses rights that the states have. and we dont have a bill of rights at all.
That is interesting.
Do you think that the rights of the states vs. country, absent individual is a result of your peaceful release from the King (so to speak)? Obviously our Founding Fathers rejected the label 'subject' and acknowledged the rights of individuals in 1776. It was that concept that truly set the fledgling country apart from virtually all others at that time.
Is it possible that Australia, without a rebellion (armed or otherwise) did not experiance this reformation, and more or less lurched into a version of the status quo? If so, when then, will you rebel?
Brad Steele
More importantly, the PEOPLE have forgotten.
One can expect government to seize all the power a people will allow. Actually, the rotten corruption in high office is perfectly to be expected.
Power corrupts.absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No.the blame rests squarely upon the shoulders of the people refusing to hold government officials responsible for selling out America.
the second serious challenge to british rule happened during the gold rush era in the 1800`s...a lot of people came here from all over the world to look for their fortunes and they rebelled against the british and their laws in regards to the mining laws which were very discriminating. that was called the "eureka stockade" and a famous american was involved, he was cobb of the cobb and co coach company. he supplied arms to the rebels, but the rebellion failed because of poor organisation, the "diggers" were more interested in getting gold out of the ground and when the troops attacked the stockade was poorly manned and armed. by the time reinforcements got there the battle was over and the survivors went into hiding.
australia was settled because the british lost the colonies in america, the british needed somewhere to put their convicts and this place was chosen. the first fleet of settlers made up of convicts and tropps arrived in 1788. captain cook "discovered" australia in 1776, well that was and still is the official line even though the portugese and french had been here before the british, the portugese and the dutch already had settlements in present day indonesia, in the case of the portugese they were there for 500 years.
we certainly didnt have to fight the british for the right to become a country in our own right. the british "allowed" us to become a country in 1901 instead of a bunch of colonies. so from that point of view we had no need to guarantee our rights in the constitution, and i met someone once who new one of the writers of our constitution and he asked why we didnt have many individual rights in the constitution and the answer was"why? its a god given right and duty for every able bodied man to have a firle and ammunition for it because you never know when the country will need it"...if only they could have looked into the future! most of our rights were taken for granted, and even when we loose rights and are told that they are a priveledge we do nothing about it...i think it will take a world wide depression for people here to fight the system and demand change..and only those who ignored the gun laws of 1996 will be in a position to stand up for their rights....but i do think that day is coming, and when it does other countries will have enough of their own troubles so we will be on our own and wont be able to rely on outside help which is the way it should be, if we want individual freedoms then it is only right that WE should have to fight for them, only then will they be appreciated!there are a lot of police and soldiers who will take the side of the civilians who rebel when the time comes so that will help the cause.
for the most part, we have allowed the politicians to dictate to us until it has gotten to the stage it is now, so we deserve what we have got, but we have to vote here or we get fined and can be put in prison for not voting, if we can abolish compulsory voting then "lobby groups" such as you have in the u.s. will have imense powers and the system will change, but the politicians know this and have said many times that they will not allow us the choise of whether we vote or not.....some democracy hey?
1.Someone mentioned Skull and Bones...I'm not a conspiracy theorist the which is how I had the common sense to learn that the "Skull and Bones" society was just a bunch of bored college kids wanting a group they could do stupid stuff in just like "*" and "Viva La Bam". They just wanted something they could push geeks out of and get the people they wanted into.
2.I'm for one LOVE this country the government isn't the greatest but I can deal with that this country is beautiful and what it cost our ancestors should never be forgotten I had ancestors in The Revolutionary War, and The Civil War (possibly even the Spanish-American War) I had relatives who fought in World War II, and a few who served without going to war so I sure as hell haven't forgotten and ain't leavin'.
3.Yes we should keep the 2nd amendment and here is why:
"The right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon if only to prevent tyranny in Government." Thomas Jefferson, Constitutional debates
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"Before all else, be armed."
Niccolo Machiavelli
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson
See? Even our nations fathers believed in the usage and ownership of firearms so to take them away is not only unconstitutional but criminal, tyrannical, and of course an INSULT to all who have come before us.
P.S: I HATE COMMUNISTS/SOCIALISTS/FASCISTS and am strongly PERMANENTLY NOT ONE!
1.Someone mentioned Skull and Bones...I'm not a conspiracy theorist the which is how I had the common sense to learn that the "Skull and Bones" society was just a bunch of bored college kids wanting a group they could do stupid stuff in just like "*" and "Viva La Bam". They just wanted something they could push geeks out of and get the people they wanted into.
Well, usmc572;
The first half of your post is rather confusing...addressing issues not germane to this discussion, near as I can tell.
As for the S&Bs freaks..allow me to disagree with you, anyway.
Now..that being said...I think I can agree with the rest of your statement. Allow me to ask a simple question...that generally seperates the men from the boys.
Do you believe that the Second Amendment allows the government to regulate, makes laws about, or infringe citizens ownership, use of, or bearing of weapons ?
I believe that if we have the Second Amendment then we would truly be citizens of the United States that's one of the reasons we went to war the British tried to take our guns which started the battle of Concord.
If the Second Amendment isn't abolished then no the government wouldn't be more controlling actually it would more than likely reduce crime rate through-out the nation and therefore the government wouldn't be able to take our guns with the claim that it's "for the security of the nation and the people".
That first part went to those people in this topic talking about skull and bones and all that crap...
I believe that if we have the Second Amendment then we would truly be citizens of the United States that's one of the reasons we went to war the British tried to take our guns which started the battle of Concord.
If the Second Amendment isn't abolished then no the government wouldn't be more controlling actually it would more than likely reduce crime rate through-out the nation and therefore the government wouldn't be able to take our guns with the claim that it's "for the security of the nation and the people".
What the hell does all that mean?
Lets focus, shall we?
We have Amendment II to the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. It says what it says.
Highball asked a simple question. I am asking it again, hopefully you will answer in a cogent manner.
Does the government have the authority to regulate, control, restrict or otherwise infringe on a citizens ability to keep and bear arms?
quote:I met someone once who new one of the writers of our constitution and he asked why we didnt have many individual rights in the constitution and the answer was"why? its a god given right and duty for every able bodied man to have a firle and ammunition for it because you never know when the country will need it"...if only they could have looked into the future! most of our rights were taken for granted, and even when we loose rights and are told that they are a priveledge we do nothing about it
Indeed the majority of the people in our country (the U.S.A.) have either forgotten or never learned this simple fact. It sounds as the situation is the same in Australia as well. Let us never forget, we are endowed by our creator with God-given human rights (or natural rights, if you choose not to believe in God). Among these rights include the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, etc., etc.
The Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution as an afterthought for the same basic reason that Dan Kelly has highlighted about the Australian Constitution. Many of our Founding Fathers questioned why these inherent human rights needed to be codified in a document. It was such a simple and basic understanding that all humans maintained these rights, no government could grant them, and only tyrants would dare to infringe upon them. Some of our Founders even had enough foresight to envision the downside of including the Bill of Rights in our Constitution... that the People may eventually believe that their rights actually came from that document itself, or from the government that it sanctioned.
And in fact that is exactly what has happened. I cringe every time I hear someone talk about their "Constitutional Rights". The Constitution grants no individual any rights. Each person on this planet is born with all of the human rights that they will ever have, whether their condition allows them to exercise those rights or not. The sole purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to outline the operation, purpose, and function of the U.S. Federal Government. The Bill of Rights emphasizes the inherent human rights of U.S. Citizens that their Federal Government shall absolutely never interfere with. It is solely a directive to the Federal Government, which, after the passing of the 14th Amendment, has now been extended to pertain to the state governments as well (which is Constitutionally questionable, in my opinion).
Until people understand these basic facts, there is no hope for preserving what little Liberty remains in our country, let alone winning back those Liberties that have been lost.
-WoundedWolf
Easy lt. Let's hear him out.
jp, I am glad to hear him out, but i'd like to understand what he is saying so that I don't come to a wrong conclusion.
His statement/reply to Highball made no sense to me. I wanted him to clarify.
Still waiting.
A few people mentioned skull and bones so I was being sarcastic.
I am basically stating the reason why they try to take away the Second Amendment is because they claim that if they take away our guns it's safer but in fact it makes it worse because criminals can get guns anyway they want no matter how many but citizens can't if they can't buy and own guns they don't have any way to defend themselves.
A few people mentioned skull and bones so I was being sarcastic.
Almost gave up on you there for a while usmc572.[:)]
Your current reply still didn't answer the simple question asked originally by Highball and a couple subsequent times by me.
Understand, I merely want to get a feel for what your philosophical underpinnings are and am not planning a "slam-fest".
When I get into discussions or debates, I like to know where the other guy is coming from, that's all.
The question:
Does the government have the authority to regulate, control, restrict or otherwise infringe on a citizens ability to keep and bear arms?
Does the government have the authority to regulate, control, restrict or otherwise infringe on a citizens ability to keep and bear arms?
As a practical matter, the government (many various governments actally - federal, atate, local) are doing it every day. So - "Do they have the authority?" Yes, and they use their various authorities every day.
If you asking the question - "Does the Constitution allow them to have such authority?", that is before the SCOTUS right now.
And that is what the Constitution requires -
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Under this section and the Judiciary Act of 1789, the United States Supreme Court was created. The Act organized the Supreme Court, the federal circuit courts and the federal district courts, established the Office of the Attorney General, and reserved the president's right to nominate justices for appointment to the United States Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate.
We know, from your previous statements,that you disagree with the Constitution. Fortunately we can rely on the Constitution, our laws, and the courts, and need pay no attention to anonymous, agenda driven, legally and historically naive, internet posters.
The question:
Does the government have the authority to regulate, control, restrict or otherwise infringe on a citizens ability to keep and bear arms?
As a practical matter, the government (many various governments actally - federal, atate, local) are doing it every day. So - "Do they have the authority?" Yes, and they use their various authorities every day.
Appreciate the response triple, but you are confusing "authority" with "power".
If you asking the question - "Does the Constitution allow them to have such authority?"[/b], that is before the SCOTUS right now.
The Constitution clearly does NOT "allow", or otherwise "provide for" the Federal Government any such authority, soon to be forthcoming SCOTUS ruling or not.
And that is what the Constitution requires -
Where in the US Constitution does it authorize judges to set aside one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights?
Once again, you are confusing things in your own mind.
The ONLY Constitutional method of changing something expressly listed, delegated, authorized, prohibited or enumerated in the US Constitution, is throught the amendment process.
The SCOTUS was never to rule on the Constitution or Bill of Rights themselves, but rather on legislation or government actions taken that may be contrary to those documents.
One could look at their role as using the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a measure, or "yardstick" if you will, to judge the constitutionality of some Federal Government action or legislation.
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Under this section and the Judiciary Act of 1789, the United States Supreme Court was created. The Act organized the Supreme Court, the federal circuit courts and the federal district courts, established the Office of the Attorney General, and reserved the president's right to nominate justices for appointment to the United States Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate.
We know, from your previous statements,that you disagree with the Constitution.
I submit that I am one of few people who take an honest look and position that is actually upholding of the Constitution.
Educate yourself about the founding documents sir. Quit letting others tell you what the Constitution and Bill of Rights mean. They are relatively simple to read and extremely easy to understand and to research.
It ain't rocket science triple.[:o)] Even you could probably get it if you applied yourself.
Fortunately we can rely on the Constitution, our laws, and the courts, and need pay no attention to anonymous, agenda driven, legally and historically naive, internet posters.
Unfortunately we CAN'T rely on our Constitution and the courts. The Constitution is consistently ignored, deliberately misconstrued, misinterpreted and otherwise misunderstood by persons such as yourself and modern "New American" Government.
As for legal and/or historical ignorance, I am on the side of the Angels in my understanding of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.[;)]
And just how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?
So, you admit you are legally and historically naive.
Like everyone, you have an opinion, and yours is just about as important as the kid's at McDonalds. One opinion, and a poorly informed, ill-educated one at that.
The judges on the SCOTUS have opinions too. Theirs are substantially more important that yours. So are the opinions of lower court judges, and elected legislators. That's as it should be, Constitutional.
Say, just what sort of "Peace Officer", as you claim, are you?
Are you an officer who has sworn to uphold laws, even those you don't like - gun laws, or -
are you a mall security guard?
Still waiting for you to answer a rather simple Constitutional question, the one you've been ducking for weeks - in case you've forgotten, here it is again -
What are the president's powers in time or war, and how do they differ from his powers in time of peace?
Simple question fo anyone who actually understands the Constitution, eh?
In my opinion, no matter how much is wrong with this wonderful country of ours, there is still no other country I am willing to relocate to.
As for legal and/or historical ignorance, I am on the side of the Angels in my understanding of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
And just how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?
Don't know, but how many can sit on your head, it is the same size?
So, you admit you are legally and historically naive.
Where did you gather this pearl of wisdom?
I don't think you'll find any admissions like that.
I suspect it was pulled from your sphincter, just like the majority of your posted views.[;)]
Like everyone, you have an opinion, and yours is just about as important as the kid's at McDonalds. One opinion, and a poorly informed, ill-educated one at that.
Ok smart guy, how about you edumacate me then?
If your off-base and wrong interpretations reference the meaning of the Constitution are an example of your wisdom and knowledge, save it, okay?
The judges on the SCOTUS have opinions too. Theirs are substantially more important that yours. So are the opinions of lower court judges, and elected legislators. That's as it should be, Constitutional.
Another clear fallacy in your argument, as usual.
Our system certainly empowers them to judge, but to judge things as constitutional, such as cases on government infringements of Amendment II, when clearly they are not, well, unconstitutional is unconstitutional, now isn't it.
You do understand the difference in ruling on legislation, or government action, while using the Constitution as a measure -vs- a ruling that directly contradicts a fundamental right, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, don't you?
Probably not.
Say, just what sort of "Peace Officer", as you claim, are you?
What sorts of "Peace Officer" do you think I am, or claim to be?
Are you an officer who has sworn to uphold laws, even those you don't like - gun laws, or -
Uh, my Oath of Office which I swore to, bound me to support and defend the US Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Arizona.
Any laws passed and/or on the books that are contrary to either of those documents, are unjust and not binding on me.
are you a mall security guard?
Yeah, you found me out. I work at the mall.
Damn triple, that was a lame attempt at.....something.
Still waiting for you to answer a rather simple Constitutional question, the one you've been ducking for weeks - in case you've forgotten, here it is again -
Sorry Skippy. I don't duck such as you. I don't recall your asking me a question.
If you'll notice, I generally skip responding to your posts and reading them, since they are so far above my limited understanding.
I don't want to embarrass myself by being soundly thrashed by your superior wisdom and wit, at least half.
Once in awhile I can't help myself from poking the little anti-Constitution monkey to see you er him come howling out of his cage.[}:)]
What are the president's powers in time or war, and how do they differ from his powers in time of peace?
Under the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2, war powers are divided between the Congress and the President.
Congress has the constitutional duty and authority to raise and support the armed forces. They also have the duty and authority to declare war.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
Your above question (in part), highly educated as you are, reads "in time or war". I assume that you actually meant "in time of war", so I'll proceed under that assumption. (although it is pretty difficult keeping up with a smart guy like you[:o)])
In time of war the POTUS is clearly the Commander in Chief.
Your question revolves around what defines a war and who gets us into such hostilities, at least as I read into it.
There is not the time to properly discuss this in written form, unless you want to do some give and take to flesh out the issue.
If you are going to take a position in support of the constitutionality of unchecked POTUS authority to enter into war, you would be wrong.
The Constitution simply states that the Congress is the recognized authority to declare war and the POTUS is the one to direct the armed forces during that war.
Simple question fo anyone who actually understands the Constitution, eh?
Well, I AM "ill-educated", but I would guess that you actually meant "for anyone who actually understands", rather than "fo" anyone.
Unless of course you are speaking Ebonics.
And yes, it actually is pretty simple.
Well my answer is no, they shouldn't be able to do such a thing. That is wrong to infringe on our rights as citizens, because if they did we wouldn't be free anymore; right?
I'll take that as a no to the question, although the question was "do they have the "Authority", not "should they be able to".
We all know that they are "able to" and do so with regularity, this due to a deliberately ignored Constitution and a stupid, ignorant and apathetic citizenry.
Amendment II denies them the "authority" to infringe, or otherwise regulate.
Thanks for the response usmc572....Semper Fi.
Yadda...yadda...yadda.
Again you propose that we simply eliminate the SCOTUS, because, after all...all we need do is ask you.
Supreme Court? We don't need no steenking Supreme Court.
Hey, maybe you can get an understudy job with that other know-it-all, Rush The Klown. LMAO!
Our system certainly empowers them to judge, but to judge things as constitutional, such as cases on government infringements of Amendment II, when clearly they are not, well, unconstitutional is unconstitutional, now isn't it.
Yadda...yadda...yadda.
Again you propose that we simply eliminate the SCOTUS, because, after all...all we need do is ask you.
Nothing ever changes with you triple.
Okay, put up or shut up time.
Show me where I EVER proposed, suggested, or otherwise advocated getting rid of the SCOTUS.
I won't hold my breath, because you will not find such a reference, regardless of your puffed up claim.
Supreme Court? We don't need no steenking Supreme Court.
See the above response.
You probably are not aware of it, but the Constitution established America's Federal Government with three (3) branches of government. It was intended as a system of checks and balances.
Those three branches are the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Branches. The SCOTUS being a part of the Judicial Branch.
Obviously you are willfully ignoring and/or failing to address the point about what exactly the SCOTUS is intended to review and what the SCOTUS' Constitutional mandates and authority are.
Hey, maybe you can get an understudy job with that other know-it-all, Rush The Klown. LMAO!
Now, after you've shot your wad with the off-base, sophomoric diversionary tactics, how about addressing any of the actual points.
Again, I won't hold my breath since you've got nothing to respond with except a wrong understanding of the Constitution and the proper role of the SCOTUS.
I have a serious suggestion for you triple.
I suggest you purchase or borrow, then read, "The Constitution in Exile" by Judge Andrew Napolitano.
This will give you a good basic understanding of why your position is flawed and why I espouse the things that I do.
I mean this in all seriousness triple.
I really see you as merely ignorant, not stupid. You fail to have an understanding of the basis of our Constitutional Republic and the specific roles of the differing branches of the Federal Government and how the Constitution has been usurped through the courts, particularly the SCOTUS.
If you take the time to educate yourself, maybe we can have a constructive discussion about adult topics and the future of America.