Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Dayton3, Mar 30, 2019.
Quote the qualifications on Congress's power to make war in clause 11.
The right wing cannot be serious in their public expenditures.
There is no provision for right wing bigotry in the federal doctrine.
That is not clause 11. Show in clause 11 where there are qualifications restricting Congress's power to make war.
it has to be for the purpose given to raise the Other People's tax monies. We have to quibble. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency that is not the common defense.
The common offense and general warfare would fall under a general defense clause; we don't have one.
So again, where does clause 11 limit Congress's power to make war.
This is the third time I'm asking. You could always be intellectually honest and just admit "It doesn't."
it is not covered by the common defense clause.
That is not part of clause 11. Where in clause 11 does Congress have its power to make war limited?
It is limited by the general powers.
you allege we cannot solve simple poverty for Individuals with a welfare clause General.
The clause 1 is not part of clause 11. Show in clause 11 where Congress's power to make war is limited.
BTW, if you are going to insist on clause 1 limiting clause 11, show an objective definition of "common defense" that means Congress cannot engage in offensive war for any reason. Note, this must be an objective definition found in the text, not your interpretation.
It really is limited by the scope of the general powers.
And Federalist 41 is objective? It isn't the interpretation of its writers?
Yes, they understood the federal doctrine.
Except the author, James Madison, supported an offensive war against the Barbary Pirates, so clearly he believed offensive war was within the scope of "common defense". He also supported an offensive war against the British in 1812 as President.
there was commerce involved. we have a commerce clause. the right wing has nothing but bigotry, and we should promote the general welfare whenever possible.
There's commerce involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.
losing money is not commerce. we should be making money.
Plenty of people are making money in Afghanistan and Iraq.
in right wing fantasy, you are Always right.
it seems like simple and socialized, wealth redistribution, to some of us.
Interesting, so if national debt is increasing that means no one is making money in your world.
Government is not a business and can't be run like one. Public policies are not meant for making money.
not sure what you mean by "Deylicate of (historic) Palestine"
In Afghanistan it was the Pakistanis who were making all of the money.
The reason why the little low intensity war in Afghanistan was so freaking expensive was the logistics involved getting all of the equipment and supplies into Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is landlocked and most of the equipment and supplies had to be unloaded from ships in Pakistan and transported over land across Pakistan then into Afghanistan.
A whole lot of bribes had to be paid off.
Using cargo aircraft is even more expensive.
During the first Gulf war and regime change and the Iraqi insurrection during the second Gulf war, 90% of the equipment, ammunition and supplies had to be moved by ships.
special pleading to the point of appealing to ignorance?
Then what was your point behind bringing up the national debt as a counter argument?
what ever can you mean; we subscribe to Capitalism and have a Commerce Clause, and our welfare clause is General not common. What problem can not be resolved with a welfare clause, General?
i wrote it in the post. you ignored it in favor of your special pleading. right wing bigotry?
Separate names with a comma.