My free book: Liberation Day: Our Nation Empowered by the Constitution

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe it would work, but I'd rather I have my leadership be a combat pilot.

They could be semi-independent like the Marine Corps is in the Navy but they need to be under the army so that their primary focus is to serve the needs of the army instead of the strategic focus they wanted.

 

[Swordsmyth]

"Air Farce"

That picture doesn't show for me.

 

[Swordsmyth]

"Air Farce"

wow never heard that one before. you're so creative. did you make that up by yourself? laugh out loud

May the Farce be with you.

 

[oyarde]

Maybe it would work, but I'd rather I have my leadership be a combat pilot.

In current warfare pilots roles are pretty much just providing close air support for combat troops . The Army Forward Observers pretty well need to control the battle field and have all fire control , mortars , artillery , close air support and naval gunnery .

 

[Danke]

In current warfare pilots roles are pretty much just providing close air support for combat troops . The Army Forward Observers pretty well need to control the battle field and have all fire control , mortars , artillery , close air support and naval gunnery .

We call the FACs (forward air controller). Fighter pilots assigned with ground units because of their knowledge of capabilities. An assignment many try to avoid.

 

[EricMartin]

@EricMartin

How is it not Constitutional?

A1S8:
The Congress shall have Power To...regulate Commerce with foreign Nations

It's a power of the state. Investment is not equal to commerce. By the way, I may be wrong on some of these interpretations, so please give me some other interpretation based on the founders words, or people close to the founders, if you have it.

 

[EricMartin]

Responding to this: [FONT=&quot]Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences - Unconstitutional. Created in 1972, educating people in medicine is not a Constitutional role of government.[/FONT]
@EricMartin

Since our military needs doctors and nurses how is this necessarily unconstitutional?
If it educates people who don't serve in the military that might be unconstitutional and if there are plenty of doctors and nurses who are willing to enlist it might be unnecessary though.

Our military needs a lot of things, perhaps an exception could be made for people learning specifically to help others in the military. But I don't think it's necessary.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It's a power of the state. Investment is not equal to commerce. By the way, I may be wrong on some of these interpretations, so please give me some other interpretation based on the founders words, or people close to the founders, if you have it.

I don't have words from the founders right now, I don't know if they ever discussed a difference between commerce and investment.

I don't see any difference between commerce and investment, trading money for possession of a company which owns hard assets isn't any different than trading money for hard assets.

 

[EricMartin]

@EricMartin

Here I strongly disagree, Immigration is part of the Law of Nations Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10.

See this article: https://i2i.org/where-congresss-powe...on-comes-from/

And: https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

(8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.



For a more detailed debate see this thread:

Article 1 Section 9

The question is, what was the founders' intent? My reasoning for this is that it looks as if many states had there own systems for allowing people to immigrate or not after the Constitution was ratified. So I see it as a state's right. But if you have some source that shows otherwise from the founders' understanding, I'd be interested. I think at the very least this might be a dual sovereignty area where states and the Feds should be able to protect their own borders at will, if not totally in the hands of the states.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Responding to this: Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences - Unconstitutional. Created in 1972, educating people in medicine is not a Constitutional role of government.
@EricMartin

Since our military needs doctors and nurses how is this necessarily unconstitutional?
If it educates people who don't serve in the military that might be unconstitutional and if there are plenty of doctors and nurses who are willing to enlist it might be unnecessary though.

Our military needs a lot of things, perhaps an exception could be made for people learning specifically to help others in the military. But I don't think it's necessary.

It may not be necessary, there are things that aren't necessary but are/would be constitutional, but since our military trains people to do many things that the military needs done and that is a natural function of the military I don't think it is unconstitutional if they are training service members who will serve as doctors and nurses.

 

[EricMartin]

@EricMartin

How is goal 3 not constitutional?

The Constitution doesn't limit the purposes that foreign commerce may be regulated for.

Good point. Thanks!

 

[EricMartin]

@EricMartin

Roads are mentioned:

A1S8:
The Congress shall have Power To...establish Post Offices and post Roads;

I know, but not in conjunction with general commerce, only for the "post".

 

[EricMartin]

Nice! Welcome to the site, Eric. I put this on the front page / our twitter for more exposure.

Thank you for the welcome! Glad to be here. Thank you for the exposure!

 

[EricMartin]

@EricMartin

As I pointed out above roads are authorized so you would need a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of federal involvement with at least some of them.

But was the original intent of the founders' to build roads for postal service? Also, you mention something which I think brings up a very common confusion about the Constitution. You said, "roads are authorized so you would need a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of federal involvement with at least some of them."

You would not need a Constitutional amendment to get rid of involvement with roads, even if it is Constitutional. All you would need is a law from Congress that gets rid of the involvement. In the Constitution the phrase is "Congress shall have the Power to". I hope everyone knows that almost every power that Congress is handed is optional. Congress can choose not to exercise those powers. And Congress didn't exercise some of its powers at first.

 

[EricMartin]

@EricMartin

These are Constitutional.
See above where I discussed Immigration.

Also: A4S4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

Good point. I think invasion is referring to military invasion.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The question is, what was the founders' intent? My reasoning for this is that it looks as if many states had there own systems for allowing people to immigrate or not after the Constitution was ratified. So I see it as a state's right. But if you have some source that shows otherwise from the founders' understanding, I'd be interested. I think at the very least this might be a dual sovereignty area where states and the Feds should be able to protect their own borders at will, if not totally in the hands of the states.

I absolutely agree that states should be able to have immigration policies, that is even referenced in A1S9:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

But I believe that it is also a necessary and intended federal power, historically the states have had loose or non-existent intrastate immigration policies which is generally a good and desirable thing but if the federal government isn't allowed to have an immigration policy then the state with the loosest immigration policy will serve as a gateway and force its policy on all the others, the only alternative would be for the states to make harsh intrastate immigration policies which would reduce the efficiency of interstate commerce and possibly result in the breakup of the union.


Here are some relevant quotes:

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)

In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), Jefferson reflects:

• "It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possi- ble in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent.

• "Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English Constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of abso- lute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emi- grants." (3)

Jefferson warns, nearly prophetically:

• "They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an un- bounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent, distracted mass." (4)

There is theory; and then there is reality. Jefferson was schooled in both. He knew that, to every liberal law, there were some reasonable limits.
We need artisans, he admitted, but not enemies. We want true freedom seekers to come, but without "extraordinary encouragements." (5)
What would Thomas Jefferson, therefore, think of an immigration policy today that, with flashing lights invites the non-working masses of the world to come--to come from countries that hate us, to a feast of "free" food, "free" health care, "free" education, "free" social security benefits, and free and instant voter registration cards? It is hard to see Jefferson calling it anything but extraordinarily unwise, and extraordinarily rev- olutionary. Jefferson would have proposed something better--a policy liberal in its ex- tension of the blessings of liberty to those who desired it, and conservative in its eco- nomic and political common sense.
Footnotes:
1. Bergh, Albert Ellery, Editor. "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Volume 3, p. 338.
2. Ibid., pgs. 338-339.
3. Bergh, Volume 2, p. 120.
4. Ibid., p. 121. 5. Ibid.



More at: http://proconservative.net/PCVol5Is2...security.shtml



And from Ron Paul:

Well, I start off with saying that it`s a big problem. I don`t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders....And that`s why I don`t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we`ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq. Ron Paul


More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty

 

[EricMartin]

I don't have words from the founders right now, I don't know if they ever discussed a difference between commerce and investment.

I don't see any difference between commerce and investment, trading money for possession of a company which owns hard assets isn't any different than trading money for hard assets.

I don't think that's the issue. When they said "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations", I think that commerce was the movement of goods to those nations or from those nations to the U.S. That's the context I see, but please let me know if you see something else.

 

[EricMartin]

It may not be necessary, there are things that aren't necessary but are/would be constitutional, but since our military trains people to do many things that the military needs done and that is a natural function of the military I don't think it is unconstitutional if they are training service members who will serve as doctors and nurses.

You might be right on this one, great point.

 

[Swordsmyth]

But was the original intent of the founders' to build roads for postal service? Also, you mention something which I think brings up a very common confusion about the Constitution. You said, "roads are authorized so you would need a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of federal involvement with at least some of them."

You would not need a Constitutional amendment to get rid of involvement with roads, even if it is Constitutional. All you would need is a law from Congress that gets rid of the involvement. In the Constitution the phrase is "Congress shall have the Power to". I hope everyone knows that almost every power that Congress is handed is optional. Congress can choose not to exercise those powers. And Congress didn't exercise some of its powers at first.

You are right but your book is about what a President could do by executive order based on things being unconstitutional, in order to take that approach to get around congress you would need an amendment.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I don't think that's the issue. When they said "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations", I think that commerce was the movement of goods to those nations or from those nations to the U.S. That's the context I see, but please let me know if you see something else.

Money is a good and control of the companies can be thought of as a good and the information that ownership gives the foreigners access to is also a good.