I’ve been seeing this comparison crop up frequently on websites and in my mailbox:
| Candidate | Congress | Military |
|---|---|---|
| John McCain | 26 Years | 22 Years |
| Barack Obama | 143 Days | 0 Years |
The “143 Days” is a bit misleading, as it’s evidently comparing days Congress is in session for Obama with calendar years of service for McCain. Obama has served in the Senate for three and a half calendar years.
Nevertheless, it’s an apt comparison. If there’s any value in experience, McCain certainly has the upper hand. And it’s kind of funny to me that military experience for the commander in chief isn’t more of a campaign issue when we’re in the middle of a war. It certainly was a campaign issue four years ago.
New Voice asks, “isn’t every politician from the President to the Mayor of Peoria supposed to represent the will of the PEOPLE?” Yes. But that doesn’t mean they can violate the constitution to do it. It was the will of the people in every state in the union in 1973 to make abortion illegal, but when the Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the constitution, the states couldn’t continue to legislate against it, will of the people notwithstanding. I could go on with other examples of the will of the people being checked by the Constitution….
“It’s not up to you, New Voice, and the President to decide the Constitution is no longer in force. It’s in force until the people of the United States amend it.”- C.J. Summers
“I could go on with other examples of the will of the people being checked by the Constitution….” -C.J. Summers
C.J.,
I understand the point you are trying to make, however the above two quotes [as part of your argument]….contradiction maybe? The Constitution is an on-going project. In the end, I believe that should ANY issue become important enough to warrant the attention of the ‘masses,’ the Constitution WILL be amended. The one huge problem I have always had with the Constitution is that as mere paper and ink, the document is meaningless. The ‘law’ comes from those empowered to make it AND interpret it. Democracy – the great paradox! Why do you think our Founding Fathers FEARED democracy? How ironic is it that we elect and empower the people/politicians that tick us off royally in the end?!?
Wow, I miss one day and holy moley on the amount of comments! So to begin:
Precinct Committeeman: I wasn’t the best in grammar whilst in school, but I think you have made my point for me. Grammatically the sentence can read “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States when called into the actual Service of the United States” and the meaning of the sentence does not change. So to your earliest point, there is a qualifying time for the President to be Commander-in-Chief.
11Bravo: I very much respect your knowledge of the Constitution, the laws, and Supreme Court rulings. I would like to have an opportunity to sit down and discuss these subjects with you. Now then,
““When called into the actual Service” doesn’t mean when at war. Service doesn’t necessarily have to be a military action,…”
I concede this point
“a military force in training is still in service to its country.”
This point, however I do not.
“At the time the Constitution was written we didn’t have a standing military presence.”
This point proves that we have been violating the Constitution for 70 plus years. There is no longer a check against a tyrannical federal government. I am not opposed to some of the changes that have been assumed by the feds over the years, I am opposed to politicians assuming they have the right and power to assume them.
To all: There most definitely were terrorists during the Founders time period. The Constitution provides a few ways in which to deal with them, and by the way, the Founders did it within the Constitutional guidelines. Nothing is stopping the U.S. today doing the same thing except an ignorant public.
To the original topic of this post, Obama and McCain and their experience: Both of them have ample experience in voting to abridge the Constitution and the rights of the people. Both of them have campaigned that they will continue to keep doing so in a variety of ways. In short, both of them a part of the problems in America in various ways. You will have 6 choices for President on the Illinois ballot. However, my money is on one of the 4 socialist (McCain included)running.
Brad,
So is a police officer who happens to be on a firing range instead of walking the street not serving the community? What would a military in training be classified as?
Brad,
“There most definitely were terrorists during the Founders time period.”
Terrosists? Maybe. In late 18th century America? I don’t think so. Supporting that argument would take a pretty thick rug [no pun intended]. You must consider the term ‘terrorist’ in TODAYS context.
“The Constitution provides a few ways in which to deal with them, and by the way, the Founders did it within the Constitutional guidelines.”
The Founders did WHAT within the Constitutional guidelines…develop the Constitution? Just where in the Constitution [adopted by our Founding Fathers in 1787] say ANYTHING about terrorists?
Like I said how can ANYONE violate a work [the Constitution] in progress? Even the Bible is open to ‘amendments’ and constant re-interpretation.
Last – With all this talk of rights being violated…whose rights are being violated here?
Excuse my typing errors.
If there were a definition of enemy combatant or terrorist that would be used as a preexisting excuse for arresting someone, I would feel less upset about suspending habeas corpus than when the government arrests or detains someone for WHATEVER reason they want and then say… “they are enemy combatants or terrorist suspects and therefor not subject to the laws and rights of our country”.
In this case, it is not the individual who is responsible for following the law, it is the government!!!! (In many cases the detainee isn’t even a citizen)
When the government is above the law, then there is no law… there is only arbitrarily enforced order.
“If there were a definition of enemy combatant or terrorist that would be used as a preexisting excuse for arresting someone.”
U.S. Code – Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B
Terrorism
18 USC 2331 Definitions
18 USC 2332 Criminal Penalties
18 USC 2332a Use of Certain Weapons of Mass Destruction
18 USC 2332b Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries
18 USC 2332e Request for Military Assistance to Enforce Prohibition in Certain Emergencies
18 USC 2333 Civil Remedies
18 USC 2334 Jurisdiction and Venue
18 USC 2335 Limitation of Actions
18 USC 2336 Other Limitations
18 USC 2337 Suits Against Government Officials
18 USC 2338 Exclusive of Federal Jurisdiction
18 USC 2339A Providing material Support to Terrorists (Footnote)
18 USC 2339B Providing Material Support or Resources to Designated Organizations
People, people………….
Before we all start yelling “WITCH HUNT,” consider this………
Following 911, the People of the U.S. spent a great deal of time and press asking [the govt.] how something like this [attack on the twins] could have happened. It did not take long before the ‘finger-pointing’ started. Why were the various law enforcement agencies NOT communicating with each other? Why was completely reliable intel [pending the attack] not swiftly acted upon? Who was asleep at the wheel? The list goes on……and on. The People demanded answers! Someone had to be held accountable. The People
would settle for nothing less!
Philosophizing about the Constitution and the Law is wonderful, but unrealistic. This may sound slightly anachronistic, but whose job is it to provide for a secure [U.S.] nation? The government, thats who! Who empowers the government? God and the people! Thats who [did I step out on a limb with that one]?
The Obama’s and the McCain’s will soon pick up the mantle of Fed Government. Party politics will continue to reign supreme. The ‘laws of the land’ will be open to an entirely fresh new set of interpretations, etc.
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2 ”Its true office,” wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ”is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘to provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?”
Wow, that quote is just stupid.
§ 2331. Definitions
How Current is This?
As used in this chapter—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
PLEASE NOTICE: “APPEAR TO BE INTENDED”
to intimidate or coerce…
Brad ,
I did not intend to be critical of the skills you have acquired over the years, my point is the conjunction “and” bring together or join two complete thoughts. The first clause is able to stand on its own and as suc is a separate idea or concept. The clause after the conjunction is a separate idea or concept. I.E. … the militia of the several states… The conjuction adds to the first clause as if it were in addition to the initial idea. The clause when called into actual service od the US means when the President nationalizes the forces that are under the state governors which they are at all times prior to a call up. 1957 Eisehower nationalized the Ark Guard to quell a domestic situation concerning integration of schools – not a time of war situation.
Another point I have come upon is the First 15 words of the 2nd article clearly establishes the President can do with the military and other departments as he/she wishes with out interference from the legislature. The exceptions are spelled out in the other articles of the Constitution i.e. declare war, ratify treaties etc. The president is always the commander in chief wheter he is in airforce one or at the Olympics or sleeping in Camp David. There are no words or phases that can keep the President from being the commander in chief. Only the removal from office or expiration of term or the invoking of the 25th Amendment will be a barrier to the position and powers there of.
kcdad wrote: I agree with David P Jordan… no prisoner of the United States government should have any rights until the government decides they have rights.
Oh wait! No I don’t. I agree with the Constitution of The United States. The government only has rights granted by the people.
kcdad, those rights are granted by the American people. Not Afghani, French or British. Big difference.
11Bravo,
Are you saying the quote is stupid…or you are stupid for not understanding it?
Without reading the complete text I can’t give merit to the quote on its own legs, but as a part of this debate its completely out of place.
You’ve already argued that the articles and amendments to the Constitution are open to interpretation as a living document, how can the preamble of the Constitution give you anymore clarity into the true meaning of it. You’re whole point seems to be there is no true meaning.
I have realized that you and I have a different point of view as to what America is. It seems that you are implying the successful defense of this nation is to protect people’s lives without regard to the infringing of the freedoms observed by them. You would have really liked the USSR, maybe even China.
11BRAVO,
The quote was directed towards KCDAD, not necessarily meant to support any argument I have made.
I am not sure WHAT YOUR idea of America is.
I love how you [and many others] clump a number of suspected terrorists in with ALL AMERICANS. WHO in the hell is infringing on the freedoms/rights of ALL Americans? WHO?
Please tell me…who are all of these Americans whose rights are being infringed upon?
“You would have really liked the USSR, maybe even China.” – Based on my argument this is the best you can come up with? Another idiotic comparison to the FORMER USSR and China…ingenious.
11BRAVO,
You are drunk, and when you are drunk you forget I am in charge.
That comment was even more lame than the quote, congratulations.
Not a problem. This entire discussion has turned lame.