Can someone tell me why the Iraq war is illegal?

If everyone in our country thought like you it would be VERY scary!! I won't try agruing reason with someone who knows no reason.

 

The Supreme Court claimed that power in Marbury v. Madison. But the Congress can restrict the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, by using the power given to it in Article III, Section 2 of the federal constitution.

 

I believe it is every US citizen's duty to study and "interpret" the US Constitution, just as much as it is the job of three branches of our government. As a citizen, while serving jury duty, I have the power to rule in favor of the Constitution over the laws if I feel those laws are unconstitutional.

Justice Scalia explained that he, like James Madison, fourth president and framer of the Constitution, interprets the Constitution according to the "common sense" meaning and definition of the document's words at the time they were written. This is the only proper way to interpret the Constitution.

An opposite approach, Scalia suggested from that applied by Justices who believe the Constitution "changes from age to age in order to meet the needs of a changing society." This is a dangerous way to interpret the Constitution, sometimes called the "living Constitution" view, allowing for flexible interpretations molded to meet the changing times.

When the US citizens give up their duty to "protect and defend" the US Constitution, and blindly allow the government to use a "living Constitution" interpretation of the Constitution, they are letting the government not only destroy the Constitution, but destroy their rights granted by God, that are supposed to be protected by the Constitution and the government. In our state of Florida, when we registered to vote we signed an oath to "protect and defend the US Constitution", I would guess that the majority of the registered voters have violated that oath, simply through their ignorance of the US Constitution and how to interpret it.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

The Supreme Court claimed that power in Marbury v. Madison. But the Congress can restrict the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, by using the power given to it in Article III, Section 2 of the federal constitution. </font>[/QUOTE]The Congress also has the power to impeach any justice who acts unconstitutionaly. The government, including the Supreme Court, are the "servants of the people" and HAVE to abide by the US Constitution. I feel the only way we will achive change in America is through proper education of the people.

 

Joseph Farrah had this to say about Supreme Court Justices "undermining the Constitution":

Americans had better rise up angry against this court or we as a nation will cease to have anything even remotely resembling a representative form of government. It's not enough to wait years for new justices to be appointed. At least five, perhaps six, members of the court have proved they are out of control, unaccountable to the Constitution from which they derive their limited authority. They are in clear violation of the oaths they took to their offices.

It's time to impeach them. It's time to put some heat on those abusing their power – and let's name names: Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens. Anthony Kennedy sometimes goes along for the ride.

These people have to go.

It's time to challenge the authority of the majority with an impeachment movement.

Will it happen overnight? Absolutely not. No great movements ever do. But it will only happen if Americans stand up and demand it. Even if the movement fails to achieve its objectives, it will set a different tone for the appointment of future justices who will know there is a political price to pay for undermining the Constitution.

SOURCE

 

If the Constitution Party really had a case that the war against terror is illegal, then Mr. Peroutka would be in federal court today with a lawsuit against the Congress and the White House.

Mr. Peroutka's lack of action indicates that this is a debate about words that goes back at least fifty years to the Korean War, which was also debated against along the same lines that Mr. Peroutka currently uses. The left tried the same point of view to stop the Viet Nam war.

Mr. Peroutka says that to go to war, Congress has to employ a certain formula of words. Congress disagrees. The White House disagrees. The Courts do not hear the case. The issue is academic. The war is legal.

 

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington

 

I have no problem with fighting the terrorist organization that attacked these United States. I have a problem with a police action in Iraq that the President and his advisers deceived us into supporting last year.

 

Daniel David,

Would you agree that any registered Florida voter who votes for someone that they know will not protect and defend the US Constitution has violated their oath as a registerd voter in the state of Florida?

 

This plank in the Constitution Party about the war in Iraq is the most hopeless plank in US political history. It didn't work in Korea, it didn't work in Viet Nam, and it won't work now. The American people are not into the legalism of such pettiness. We are at war.

The Constitution Party is the gang that couldn't shoot straight. They run the same legal debate about foreign aid. It also falls flat.

The enactment of the Constitution Party's program would mean international disaster.

 

I haven't seen the new party platform, CMG. Can you paste for us the plank on Iraq?

 

Oh, are you saying that they dropped that stuff about the war being illegal? Maybe they are starting to see the light after feeling the heat.

 

CMG, in 2000 there was no police action in Iraq to have a plank about in the platform. In case you don't know it, the police action didn't start until 2003. I thought you had something new to contribute by having read the recently adopted 2004 platform that I haven't seen yet.

But, in your case, I should've known better.

 

Is this just some nitpicking? Is the debate about something that Mr. Peroutka said instead of something that is in the platform? Is this just a technicality about where the statement is located? The Constitution Party thrives on petty points. They say that the war is illegal because only Congress can declare war and they say that they don't like the way the resolution was worded. I am beginning to agree with Daniel David that Mr. Peroutka is acting cowardly.

 

Here is what Peroutka is saying about the war in Iraq.

First of all, he says that it is "...the un-Constitutional, bloody, deadly, mess going on in Iraq."

"...President Bush, using our military, has gone abroad and destroyed the monster Saddam Hussein who posed no threat to the vital national security interests of our country. The result: We are bogged down in a bloody and expensive mess with no end in sight. If elected President, however, I would move immediately to end our involvement in Iraq. I am not one who believes that when you are in a hole you should not be in, you should keep digging."

Undoubtedly, Peroutka reflects the thinking of the entire Constitution Party, which seems to be a top-down, chain of command, sort of party.

 

This is a great question. If the CP really had a case against the war on terror, then why doesn't lwayer Peroutka file a lawsuit against the Congress and the White House in federal court? Surely, since he is a lawyer, this should be an easy case for him to win, right? What is the deal here?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Daniel David and KenH, a number of your posts on this topic have been deleted. Take it to pm or don't post at all, both of your comments were ridiculously childish in their insults abd this forum deserves better than to be spammed with such.

Everyone else, go ahead with the topic please.

Gina

 

Thank you, Gina.