Political Cartoons Done Right | 92 comments (92 topical, 0 hidden)
I appreciate you attempt at making a meaningful... (none / 1)

statement, but think about it for more than 5 seconds.  If they meant for US vs Wong case to also apply to the natural born citizen status that could have easily incorporated the language.  In fact they specifically left it out.

You are right about precedent, however the only precedent goes back the "Law of the Nations." And that is very clear.

So on the one hand you are beating the drums for "freedom religion" like a died in the wool Libertarian and on the other you want to be a Liberal and say, it's okay if our leaders ignore the constitution when I agree with them.

Since our vaunted leaders seem to ignore every law when they do want to follow one, it makes you think, why?

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/03/2010 08:53:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're so ignorant it's scary (none / 1)

"The Law of Nations" (not Law of the Nations) was the book written by de Vattel based on Swiss common law. Our Constitution is based on English common law.

Furthermore, "Law of Nations" didn't even include the words "natural born citizen" until 1797, 10 years after the Constitution.

You tell me how it makes more sense to interpret the Constitution based on Swiss common law over English common law AND show me a Supreme Court ruling that does so and you'll have an argument.

Until then, thanks for failing.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/03/2010 04:05:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have to add this (none / 1)

mcamelyne,

Your bff Apuzzo writes in his blog:

Furthermore, there was only 1 definition for Natural Born Citizen (specifically, word for word) during the founding of our Country and the framing of our Constitution. That of Vattel’s. The framers were obviously familiar with Vattel’s work, even openly reading it during the Constitutional Convention itself.

Given that "natural born citizen" (specifically, word for word) did not exist in Vattel's work until the 1797 edition, Apuzzo is a liar and you fell for it. Way to fail, big dog.

Way. To. Fail. 

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/04/2010 07:36:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Apuzzo is a liar and is risking his... (none / 0)

license to promote a lie.  What is more likely, that you are wrong or a constitutional lawyer writing briefs to the supreme court?

either way, let's see what Clarence Thomas has to say when he reviews the case next month.

Then let's see which side of the fence you are on, the constitutional side or the expediency side?

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/04/2010 11:12:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, let's see indeed. (none / 0)

Let's see Apuzzo get thrown out on his ass AGAIN and let's he him pay those damages the Third Circuit let him off on.

What's more likely:

Tthe Supreme Court interpreting our 14th Amendment's citizenship clause based on the same precedent already defined by US v Wong Kim Ark

OR

A lawyer is lying.

Gee, let me think. This guy is turning himself into a right-wing celebrity. He doesn't care about the legality of the case or his future as an attorney. He's laying down a foundation to be a Fox News legal analyst.

Just wait. The Supreme Court will not hear his case because it's a frivolous appeal. He may or may not pay damages (probably not), and within days he'll be interviewed about it on Fox and following that he'll be a regular on the network.

He's sacrificing his career as an attorney to get a cushy job on Fox. It's only the smartest career move of all time.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/04/2010 02:21:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He won't pay damages... (none / 1)

The court has to prove his case is frivolous.  The only way to do that is for Obama to produce his birth certificate.  Further, the US attorney is in error.  This case shouldn't have gone forward since all they needed to do was produce Obama's birth certificate to shut it down.

Obama wants this fight.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/05/2010 02:37:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You've got it backwards. (none / 1)

They don't have to prove that the appeal is frivolous. He has to prove that it isn't. He can't. Hence, it's frivolous. He's essentially filing the suit and the appeals based on a hunch. He has no proof or sufficient reason to believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii. That's why they keep throwing the case out. Without a case, no one needs to see the certificate. If no one needs to see it, Hawaii State law makes its release illegal.

Between the witnesses of his birth, witnesses of the long form birth certificate, the certificate of live birth, and the ad taken out in the Hawaii newspaper announcing his birth, unless you're one of these lunatics that thinks Obama's real father is Malcolm X, what are you expecting to find?

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/05/2010 05:22:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Again, you're attention to detail sucks. (none / 1)

They have thrown out the case because of standing.  Courts can individually decide who has standing and can use different yardsticks as they please.

In this case they ruled that all Americans are suffering so unless all Americans join in that Kerchner is not special enough to demand justice.

The US attorney has an obligation to minimize the cost to the government by providing any public records that might weigh in on the case.  Obama's birth certificate is a public record.  The fact that they have not, either means there is something wrong and they are stone walling, or they want it to go to the supreme court to get a real definition of "natural born."

Both Democrats and Republicans would like to see the traditional definition liberalized.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/05/2010 05:48:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It can't possibly get more public (none / 1)
Obama's birth certificate is a public record.

Yeah. That's why it was so easy to find. Every time some moron asked for it.

by OneHitKill on 09/05/2010 07:57:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry, to disappoint, but it isn't. (none / 0)

That document on fact check only states that there is a birth certificate on file.  You can go round and round on that, but it isn't his birth certificate.

In his book, Obama states he found his birth certificate, then he need only show it.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/05/2010 09:30:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Is it so hard to see that you're a racist? (none / 0)

Hawaiian birth certificates ARE NOT public record.

 

Why all the fuss in the first place, mcamelyne? No one questioned Bush's place of birth. Or Clintons or Bush Sr's or Reagan's.

All the records show that he was born here. Unless you are alleging that the certificate of live birth is fake, and that the announcement in the newspaper is fake, and that the witnesses are lying and that his mother flew out of the country for no reason just to have him, then it's pretty clear that this is an issue being conjured up for one reason and one reason only: He's black.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/05/2010 02:26:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your intellect has run out...play the racist card. (none / 0)

When Obama became a Senator, his birth certificate became a public record.  He's not your neighbor.  Bush, Reagen, Clinton, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc for 100 years have all had parents that were American citizens at their time of birth.

Further, ask yourself why Congress declared McCain a natural born citizen and not Obama?

Why did Pelosi only certify Obama as being natural born in the state of Hawaii and none of the others contravening established protocol?

I am not suggesting that Obama was not born in Hawaii.  I really don't care, I am only focusing on his father which is not in dispute.  They want the original certificate to compare verify who is father was.  It's just dotting the i's and crossing the t's.  The basic point is acknowledged.

I am surprised you didn't say anything about my purposeful mistake "you're" in the header.  Just having some fun.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/06/2010 03:52:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Who is feeding you this bullshit? (none / 0)

How do you feel about this?:

And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c . The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. ---Lynch v. Clarke. 1844

That was written in 1844 and cited by those of the Majority in US v Wong Kim Ark.

Lynch v. Clarke set a precedent to interpret the Constitution based on the British common law being practiced at the time of its adoption.

This precedent was reinforced by the Supreme Court when they specifically cited Lynch v. Clarke in deciding their ruling in US v. Wong Kim Ark.

Interpreting the Constitution based on Swiss common law instead of British common law would be contradictory to the precedent set and reinforced by Lynch v Clarke and US v Wong Kim Ark.

Interpreting the Constitution based on British common law would be consistent with the precedent set and reinforced by Lynch v Clarke and US v Wong Kim Ark.

Lynch v Clarke explicitly and in common language supports my position that at the adoption of the Constitution, the only standard which existed of a "natural born citizen" was common law.

Lynch v Clarke also explicitly and in common language provides, as an example, a hypothetical scenario in which the elected President is native born but to alien parents and in that scenario, the author explicitly states that he does not think there could be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution.

Is there any information I have listed which is factually incorrect?

Have I committed any fallacies? If so, where?

In the words of Ken, "Am I missing something?"

 

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/06/2010 08:07:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm impressed you are doing your homework... (none / 0)

a few minor contentions, common law dealt with real property law, not citizenship laws.

http://www.svpvril.com/OACL .html

If we followed British common law to the letter we would never have permitted slavery.

http://medicolegal.tripod.c om/slaveryillegal.htm

Just to humor myself:

EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:

The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:

The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.

http://james4america.wordpr ess.com/2009/08/07/u-s-cons titution-and-vattels-law-of -nations-the-answer-has-bee n-there-all-the-time/

Just to humor you:

Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. ---Lynch v. Clarke. 1844

Here is the Dred Scott decision which was written after Lynch and would appear to overrule it...

"the Court said: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights. Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . ." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857).

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2 009/09/natural-born-citizen -clause-requires.html

Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858),; native born, not natural born

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874); parents to be considered natural born

Unfortunately for Obama, the Wong case was unique and only applied to Wong. In fact Scalia considers it one that is open to review and should be overturned.

Don't worry the Supreme Court will make its ruling soon enough, just start practicing the backstroke.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/06/2010 10:07:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You are full of factual inaccuracy (none / 0)

#1, If we followed Swiss common law to the letter we would have never allowed slavery.

We didn't follow anybody's common law "to the letter" but we did follow somebody's common law for the most part, and that was British not Swiss.

#2, You can't tell me on one hand that common law doesn't apply to citizenship while on the other hand arguing that Vattel's book is the authority on citizenship when it too is based on common law, specifically Swiss common law.

#3, You cited de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212

Too bad for you "natural born citizen" wasn't in the book until 1897. I have already briefed you on this, thus now I must accuse you of intentional dishonesty.

#4, You say: Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED (Const. Art. I, Sec. 8), meaning our framers were citing a proper name.

The Constitution, and especially Art I Sec 8 capitalized a LOT of words. It wasn't meant to denote a proper name. Go ahead and look for yourself instead of just issuing out a cut/paste job. Are you still afraid to view the Constitution itself?

In that same line, also capitalized is "Piracies and Felonies" the word "Seas" and the word "Offenses".

Also, they didn't capitalize the word "The" which is included in the title of "The Law of Nations"

I have to gig you again for a case of intentional dishonesty.

#5, You can go ahead and cite Dred Scott v Sanford all day, you f*cking racist. I'll let you dig your own grave on the one.

Besides, it has been superseded by the 13th and 14th Amendments.

#6 Cited in Munro v Merchant was common law which argued that a "Natural born subject was one whose birth was under the allegiance of the King."

#7 Minor v Happersett specifically avoided deciding whether a "natural born citizen" required citizen parenthood and acknowledged a difference of opinion on the matter. Being an irrelevant distinction in the case, they left it up to future Justices to make that decision.

Your post is full of factual errors, a few of which are obviously intentional on your part or the part of your sources. Did my post have a single factual error in it? Not one.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/06/2010 05:55:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
typo (none / 0)
*1797, not 1897

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/06/2010 08:43:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Come on James, check your assumptions... (none / 0)

#! and #2, you are right, however I said British Common law, not Swiss.

That's funny, when I looked it up both books referenced natural born, but one referenced father only and the other referenced parents.

Dred Scott was cited to say it canceled Lynch.

Again, you came claim factual errors all you want. The supreme court happily will be the deciding factor in this case.  If the errors were as simple as you maintain, it wouldn't be going before the supreme court.

Once again, you need to get off your high horse and let the real judges decide what is fact from fiction.  Obviously the only interpretation of the constitution that is acceptable is your own and one that supports your agenda.

I only ask what you will do when your house of cards comes crashing down.  The whole point of this case is to get the American public to agree to change the rules.  Both sides want to do away with this clause to allow a foreign born leader to be President.

I guess that never occurred to you that there might be a real political agenda.  Just like FOX news financing politically divisive activities like Mosque building and Machete films.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/06/2010 11:33:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Let's refresh. (none / 0)

I said "Swiss" on purpose to show you that your own argument was working against you.

So you agree with the Dred Scott v Sanford ruling. Good to know.

You can have either book. It doesn't matter because America wasn't operating under Swiss common law at the adoption of the Constitution. It was operating under British common law.

You're right. I do interpret the Constitution based on my agenda, if that agenda is maintaining the integrity of the Constitution.

I'm all for letting the Supreme Court decide the winner of our debate. Don't be surprised when the Supreme Court does the exact same thing the Third Circuit did, which was to throw Apuzzo out on his ass. Of course, you'll just come back and tell me that the Supreme Court is wrong.

But in the mean time, I've been going through the Constitution looking for the "two citizen parents" clause you mentioned before. Given that you're concerned with facts, I trust that it must be in there somewhere. Looking, looking, looking... Still looking... Odd, either it's in there or you're an idiot. Which is it? Is it in there or are you an idiot?

Two choices:

A) The Constitution has a "two citizen parents" clause.

or

B) You're an idiot.

And yes, if you evade this question I will come back to it, but maybe not in this thread

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/07/2010 01:39:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I guess we are both idiots... (none / 0)

I was looking for the Income tax clause, missed that one.  I was looking for the Patriot Act clause, I missed that one too.  Oh, I missed that one where the President can declare war.  Gosh, I guess that's why we have a supreme court, duh!

What are you Homer Simpson?

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/07/2010 09:26:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You should really try reading it (none / 0)

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"

and furthermore in the 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So I guess income tax doesn't make me an idiot.

But yeah the PATRIOT ACT is bullshit and in direct violation of the 4th Amendment. But I've been against it from day one... so I guess I'm still not an idiot.

and

No President has "declared war" without the consent of Congress, not even Bush.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/07/2010 01:54:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry, I missed that declaration of war (none / 0)
against Afghanistan.  The one against Cambodia and Laos or how about Pakistan?

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/08/2010 01:50:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Go do some research. (none / 0)
We haven't declared war since WW2

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/08/2010 04:46:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's right...so why are we losing soldiers (none / 0)
everyday?  We are at war.  Nobody minces words and calls it a police action like Vietnam.  It's war and Congress is on vacation.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/08/2010 06:27:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
i say again (none / 0)

America has not declared war since WW2

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/08/2010 07:42:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
tell that to all the veterans Mr. absolute. (none / 0)

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/08/2010 08:32:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Mistake #371 (none / 0)
I am a veteran

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/08/2010 03:12:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I saw your picture... (none / 0)
A veteran of what, not a war.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/09/2010 05:56:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Operation Iraqi Freedom (none / 0)

I never said that war has not been waged by a President (some argue a difference between "war" and "police action", some don't). I'm simply saying it hasn't been declared. Furthermore, I never weighed in on this issue so you really don't know my feelings about it.

Just like you commented on the Constitution without having read it, you have commented on my views regarding delegated war powers without asking for my opinion.

Why would you do that? Is it that important to you to save face that you would call me an idiot based on assumptions you've made regarding my opinions just to counter the emotional burden of admitting that you're an idiot?

Your statement was, "I guess we're both idiots", admitting your own idiocy but then positing that I too am an idiot for the following reasons:

  1. "I was looking for the Income tax clause, missed that one."
  2. "I was looking for the Patriot Act clause, I missed that one too."
  3. "Oh, I missed that one where the President can declare war."

1, As I have already pointed out to you, there is an Income Tax clause. 2, I agree that the PATRIOT ACT is probably Unconstitutional. 3, You don't know how I feel about the delegation of war powers, and at any rate no President has ever declared war.

That pretty much sums up my rebuttal to your accusation that I, like you, am an idiot.

Therefore, you're an idiot.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/09/2010 07:10:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You have shown amazing brevity... (none / 0)

No war since WWII

I am a veteran

Doesn't say very much, does it.  So knowing you were a veteran I opened the door for you or anyone to explain how nearly 100,000 soldiers have died fighting non-wars.  As a constitutionalist and I assume an oath keeper you might have an opinion regarding the current illegal, I mean unconstitutional, wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Columbia.

The non-declaration of war on Pakistan will be the next constitutional issue.  Seems like everyone, probably myself included, can read what they  want into our constitution.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/09/2010 08:28:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Again (none / 0)

How do I get caught up in your idiocy? I have not made any untrue statements.

We have not declared war since WWII. That's a fact, jack. Go do something crazy out-of-this-world like, I don't know... LOOK IT UP.

But don't call me an idiot regarding an opinion you assume I hold.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/09/2010 03:23:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You missed the forest for the trees... (none / 0)

I said the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Columbia were unconsititutional. If they were wars then they were undeclared ones.  That is an abuse of power far more grievous then telling some local Imam to move his mosque somewhere else.

You gave me half answers.  These were predicated on the point that blind defense of constitutional rights in the face of gross unconsitutional behavior is silly and possibly moronic at best.

I like Imam Raul's logic now.  He can't move the mosque because too many Muslims overseas will take offense and might take violent action against Americans overseas.  That is exactly the point that people made objecting to the mosque that it would become a potent symbol overseas.

All he did was confirm it.  What a joke.

 

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/09/2010 11:57:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Did I miss something? (none / 0)
Congress may not have declared war in these cases, but Congress did approve of them, further mucking the waters.

What that says about my opinion, you still don't know. So don't call me an idiot based on your assumptions. Idiot.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/10/2010 12:47:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So what were you doing there? (none / 0)
Does that make you a war criminal under international law?

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/11/2010 05:59:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Do you enjoy driving 60mph into brick walls? (none / 0)
You don't even know the US Constitution. I'll have to assume you don't know international law either. Don't do this to yourself. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/11/2010 02:51:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
i suppose under International law it is... (none / 0)

perfectly alright to invade a country without provocation, slaughter its people, overturn its government, and occupy it for years all the while killing and maiming civilians to impose your governmental system on them.

I think I read that part in the UN declaration.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/11/2010 09:30:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
While I may not personally agree it, (none / 0)

Of course you didn't read that part.

You didn't read it at all.

You don't even know the name of the document you didn't read.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/12/2010 02:05:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Amazingly I can read... (none / 0)

Here is what was discussed regarding the legality of the war in Iraq, hint they needed to find weapons of mass destruction.

"Self Defense

Since it was not directly attacked by Iraq the United States did not have an obvious right to self-defense. The administration, though, argued that it had a right to defend itself preemptively against a future possible attack. In his speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, President Bush described Saddam Hussein's regime as "a grave and gathering danger," detailed that regime's persistent efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and spoke of an "outlaw regime" providing such weapons to terrorists. For an extensive discussion of international law and the preemptive use of force, see the Congressional Research Service's Report for Congress of September 23, 2002. "
 

http://www.hrcr.org/hottopi cs/Iraq.html

No weapons of mass destruction, no international justification for war.  Ergo, everyone who participated in the war is a war criminal under International law.  Don't take my word for it, read the UN charter.

Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42. 

Wiggle all you want, Congress did not declare war and Iraq was not a threat to the US.  It was an illegal war and all military personnel are required to question an illegal order under the UCMJ.  I don't think I need to give you that reference.

Afghanistan is exactly the same.  The Taliban never attacked the US.  Afghanistan never presented a threat directly or indirectly to the US, another illegal war.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/12/2010 05:38:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Have I argued that the war was legal? (none / 0)

I must have missed the part where I argued that the war was justified.

I must have also missed the part where you drew a line from our nation's criminal responsibility to the criminal responsibility of soldiers.

You gonna dig up the Nuremburg Trials next?

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/12/2010 06:39:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why dig up old news...the Nuremburg trials? (none / 0)

They set the precedence.  What do you think will happen in the future?  The US will join the International Criminal Court and there will be trials for US war criminals.  But not for Bush or Cheney, as usual the common man will get punished. It's inevitable because it has happened everywhere else.

You don't like my position on the mosque, because of a constitutional stretch regarding "Freedom of Religion."  I say stretch because I don't seek to deny them the right to worship, just where they worship.  

In this, I am not alone, a super-majority of Americans and New Yorkers agree.

http://www.earthtimes.org/a rticles/news/342584,poll-ne w-york-times.html

You can call me bigot, racist, unconstitutionalist (is that a word?), or whatever you want, but I speak for the majority. Sometimes regardless of our constitutional rights we shouldn't do something.  Should we burn Korans, no.  I cannot support that either.  It's disrespectful and distasteful.  Should we burn the US flag, no.  I cannot support that either.  Is that freedom of speech, probably, that doesn't make it right.

As Americans we often do the right thing for the wrong reason and the wrong thing for the right reason.  Pragmaticism.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/13/2010 01:06:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ever heard of argumentum ad populum? Look it up. (none / 0)

Just because you deem something "not right" doesn't mean it isn't protected by the Constitution.

You have the right to freedom of speech too. And with that freedom of speech, you can express your personal disapproval of the 'mosque' or flag burning or koran burning. When a majority expresses that same opinion, those acts become less and less popular and with any luck, the perpetrator will decide on his or her own to avoid doing things that will make them less popular.

However, when the public gets outraged at Obama and Bloomberg for not stepping in and preventing the 'mosque' or flag burning or koran burning, this is just downright idiotic. They have no right to infringe on freedom of speech unless that speech provokes imminent physical harm.

Furthermore, people like you don't seem to realize just how counter-productive it is to focus your energy towards the people who burn flags. Of course you don't like it. That's the point. That's the purpose of the statement that is being made and the more you disagree with it, the more profound the statement becomes. For every flag burned on American soil, a conservative trips over his own dick against freedom of speech, one of the main principles the flag stands for.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/13/2010 06:36:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And then there is the real world... (none / 0)

If everything was so cut and dry why do we live in a nation divided ready to riot and kill one another.  Sometimes you do the smart thing regardless of the "law."

Once upon a time it was constitutional to hold slaves.  That was wrong, too.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/14/2010 01:58:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're comparing (none / 0)
Burning a flag to slavery. Wow.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/14/2010 03:41:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You could look at it that way... (none / 0)

Is the constitution even relevant or just an archaic document from our history?  Nobody seems to follow it, unless they want to score political points.

When a law becomes ignored, it no longer forms the basis for law.  Welcome to the 21st century James, your government does as it pleases and when the constitution stands in the way, they trample it.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/14/2010 03:53:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Go read the Constitution (none / 0)
And then get back to me.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/14/2010 02:32:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The constitution was shredded by the... (none / 0)
Patriot Act.  It no longer regulates our government.  Go read the Patriot Act.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/14/2010 10:51:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Agreed (none / 0)

I've ready and we agree. It violates the Constitution, particularly the 4th Amendment. Your stance on the PATRIOT ACT is contradictory to your stance on flag burning (et al). If you get mad when our 4th amendment rights get trampled, you should be mad when someone tries to trample our 1st amendment rights.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/14/2010 11:16:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No, it doesn't. I am proud to be an American... (none / 0)
while you may have the legal right to burn the flag, as a political statement, not the proper destruction one, if I caught you doing it, I would beat the crap out of you.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/14/2010 11:28:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And (none / 0)
You would get your ass kicked, go to jail, then get sued. Sad day.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/15/2010 12:56:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Gladly, free speech carries a responsibility... (none / 0)

that you protect it and not give your adversary cause to take it away.  It's all mute, I lost my free speech when they passed the Patriot Act.

I doubt they would ever get to the foot soldiers, but eventually someone will follow up on this once the US joins the new global government.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ index.php?title=Bush_Admini stration_War_Crimes_in_Iraq

Eventually someone will want their pound of flesh out of America. Sad day for Americans.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/15/2010 05:27:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So... (none / 0)

In order to "protect" my free speech, I must not practice it, other wise it will be taken away?

That's your position on flag burning?

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/15/2010 05:48:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You must choose carefully... (none / 0)
try walking in Harlem and say "nigger."  My point is with freedom comes responsibility.  You must be pragmatic.  That is why we say war on terror, not war on radical Islam.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/16/2010 12:21:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So... (none / 0)

Walking into Harlem and saying "nigger" gives the people in Harlem a right to kick my ass?

Try walking into an Oklahoma Sooners bar wearing a Texas Longhorns shirt.

Based on your logic, the Sooners fans would be justified in pulling your balls off.

http://www.faniq.com/blog/T exas-Longhorns-Oklahoma-Soo ners-Rivalry-Moves-Straight -to-the-Top-Fan-Nearly-Lose s-Scrotum-Blog-3909

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/16/2010 12:45:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Actually it was the opposite... (none / 0)

I may have the right to walk into the bar and call everybody a whore's son.  But pragmatism prevents me from doing it.  The same goes for Koran and Bible burning.  This lip service to "freedom of speech" is a joke.  Intelligent people can use common sense to restrict their speech themselves without need of a speech committee deciding which words are okay and which are not.

And if I was a Sooners fan, i might pull somebody's balls off, but I'm not so we will never know.  There is a difference between a football fan and destroying the emblem of your nation.  You are just setting up a strawman and you know it.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/16/2010 03:03:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That speaks volumes about your values. (none / 0)

Intelligence isn't measured by how hard you hit.

Notice you didn't say "Violent people can use fighting to restrict the speech of others without need of a speech committee deciding which words are okay and which are not."

In your own words: "Intelligent people"

Not "violent" people. It takes a special kind of idiot to say in one breath that speech can be restricted by intelligent people and in the next breath condone restricting speech by hitting someone in the face.

You are the speech committee

You want to restrict my speech and decide which words are okay or not.

"It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Texas v Johnson 1989

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/16/2010 04:14:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not the speech committee and we don't (none / 0)

live in a courtroom.  We live in the real world with a mix of educational standards.  Be a hard case and die gasping "freedom of speech" as the enemies of America stand laughing over you.

Your wake-up call should have been Palestine when the people there exercised their new found freedom of speech and elected a bunch of terrorists.  Go freedom of speech.  Like I said it comes with responsibility, abuse it and you will lose it.  That's why we have the Patriot Act.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/16/2010 05:07:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
at least you're honest (none / 0)
when you say "enemies of america" you realize you're referring to yourself, right?

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/16/2010 03:51:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Really? An enemy seeks to destroy your... (none / 0)
way of life, I only seek compromise to promote harmony.  You have a funny way of defining your enemies and your friends.  I suppose Dick Cheney is a friend and I am the enemy.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/16/2010 07:54:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I.d.i.o.t. (none / 0)

I'm using your definition!

"Be a hard case and die gasping "freedom of speech" as the enemies of America stand laughing over you."

Who would be laughing over me if I tried to burn the flag (freedom of speech) and got my ass kicked for it? YOU!

It's fun to watch you trip over your own dick.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/16/2010 10:37:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I was thinking about you this morning as I left... (none / 0)
the house.  The analogy was Anakin Skywalker dueling with Obi-wan Kenobi.  Only the Sith deal in absolutes, welcome to the Sith.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/16/2010 10:53:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I was thinking about you... (none / 0)

Because the Sith were for free speech, right?

 

The one dealing with absolutes here is you. You believe morality and ethics to be black and white issues. Burning the flag is wrong and should therefore be punishable by force... no pun intended.

I don't like the idea of burning the flag either. I don't like the word nigger or religion for that matter. The first amendment protects all these things not because we like them, but rather in spite of the fact that we don't. That is a core American principle. If you are against it, or generallyforitexceptincases whereyoudon'tlikewhat'sbein gsaid, then you are against a core, nay... THE core American principle.

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/17/2010 02:35:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The absolute is that you defend something to... (none / 0)

the death even though you know it is inherently wrong.  Standards change over time and so must the laws and constitution.  I believe so strongly in that that I left the US.  I am an American in passport and inherent culture only.  I will not go back to an America I see to be a nation of hypocrisy where laws and legislatures are corrupted by money interests.

That was the nation that Jefferson warned against and those money interests will continue to use those laws to justify their rape of our nation.  

How's that for honesty.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/17/2010 07:55:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I defend freedom of speech. (none / 0)
Did you move to a country that bans flag burning? Nazi Germany, perhaps?

"Terrorism is the war for the poor and powerless. War is the terrorism for the rich and powerful."

by JamesStevensDigArt on 09/17/2010 08:29:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Vietnam, don't try burning the flag here. (none / 0)

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/17/2010 09:46:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Political Cartoons Done Right | 92 comments (92 topical, 0 hidden)