10 To define and punish Priacies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11 To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
So yea, the Constitution does give the USA the right to defend American national interest.
First off... Ron Paul tried to get Congress to declare war... but they would not hear of obeying the constitution.
Secondly... please define the portion of the quoted material above that you feel gives the US authority to do anything other than the non-interventionist policies we have been speaking of?
10 To define and punish Priacies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11 To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
So yea, the Constitution does give the USA the right to defend American national interest.
No one disputes that. What we dispute is what constitutes American national interest. We dispute the Executive Branch's authority to conduct military operations in foreign countries without a declaration of war by Congress. We dispute that America retaliating against Islam's retaliating against America because of America's interfering in the affairs of other nations is in America's national interest (and even if it is, only Congress has the authority to declare war).
The founding fathers believed that America's national interest was to butt out of the affairs of other nations! You really aren't getting it: American interventionist policies were what resulted in 9/11 and other terrorist attacks on America.
what interventions has America done in the last 50 years that were not in the interests of the United States, and were not a response to some "offence against the law of Nations" (that last bit is a quote from the constitution)
and the founding fathers held widely varying beliefs. Some of the founding fathers felt it was treason for the United States to purchase Louisiana. That is why the Lewis and Clark expidition was top secret.
The founding fathers did not walk in lockstep. What they did deem important holistically, they codified in the Constitution... which we have already established leaves room for America to interviene when we feel it necessary to do so.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
what interventions has America done in the last 50 years that were not in the interests of the United States, and were not a response to some "offence against the law of Nations" (that last bit is a quote from the constitution)
The latter has nothing to do with the former (and you did not provide the context of the latter quote). But to answer your question, Korea, Iran, Viet Nam, Central America, Lebanon, Grenada, Kuwait, Bosnia, Africa, and all of the other foreign military actions that were without a direct declaration of war by Congress.
Quote:
and the founding fathers held widely varying beliefs. Some of the founding fathers felt it was treason for the United States to purchase Louisiana. That is why the Lewis and Clark expidition was top secret.
But that has nothing to do with interfering with the affairs of other nations or with foreign entanglements.
Quote:
The founding fathers did not walk in lockstep. What they did deem important holistically, they codified in the Constitution... which we have already established leaves room for America to interviene when we feel it necessary to do so.
No one disputes that. What we dispute is what constitutes American national interest. We dispute the Executive Branch's authority to conduct military operations in foreign countries without a declaration of war by Congress. We dispute that America retaliating against Islam's retaliating against America because of America's interfering in the affairs of other nations is in America's national interest (and even if it is, only Congress has the authority to declare war).
in fact Chan, D4T DID dispute the notion that the Constitution provides America the ability to intervene in foreign affairs.
further, the articles I quoted do not state imperically that the Congress must delcair war for such interventions to happen.
addtitionally, both the President and the Congress are following the letter of the constitution, in that appropreations for the conflicts currently takeing place are reviewed and renewed within the specified time frame of 2 years.
thus your claim is baseless constitutionally.
however, if you desire to make a Philosophical argument based on what you believe to be the best course, then have at it. I disagree but the constitution does afford you that right.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Glad to be of service! 
Linear Mode
