It is a very strange casus belli, to claim that a foreign leader broke our laws in his country. Of course, the NFA is itself an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment which should have no legal force in any event: thus, there's even less reason to try to enforce it on a foreigner in his own nation.
The War Powers Resolution doesn't seem to forbid this since the action began and ended so quickly -- well within the timelines the law sets up. That ship probably sailed with the Libyan overthrow in any case; Secretary of State Clinton quite openly declared the Obama administration wasn't going to bother with it.
This sets up a kind of loophole, I guess, presuming that you can win your wars quickly enough. Many a war has begun under the presumption that it would end quite quickly -- it is said that picnickers came out to watch the first battle of Manassas (also known as the first battle of Bull Run). Not every war expected to be short and easy has turned out so.
8 comments:
We don't recognize Maduro as president. He has been indicted on drug charges.And it is fentanyl, which is causing upto 100K deaths of Americans per year, not teenagers getting stoned on pot.
So I approve, unlike Obama's actions against Gaddafi.
I don't have a brief for Communist dictators, but I do find this particular charge really ironic. I wish the Trump administration would get right on the 2nd Amendment.
It is true that a fully constitutional power of a President is to receive ambassadors, which amounts to the power to recognize which governments are considered legitimate by us. However, China just sent an envoy to Maduro to treat with his government, and Russia is also supporting them as legitimate. We're probably just going to end up with a vetoed Security Council resolution, which is to say nothing; just as Congress, which could contest the issue of the War Powers Resolution, is also proving toothless.
There's only raw power left, which raises the danger of a real war: Russia in Ukraine but also across Africa; China in Taiwan (and also Africa), us in Venezuela (as Libya and Niger).
Do you have a link to the source? Not sure what this is about.
To the indictment? Sure, it’s been unsealed and published.
https://x.com/agpambondi/status/2007468832567222274?s=46
Massie is an utter waste of a Conservative seat in the House. His Prime Directives seem to be two: Whatever goes against Trump and whatever goes for Massie personally.
His X post, quoted in OP, demonstrates, if nothing else, his general uselessness: it's completely devoid of any logic whatsoever. The words of Massie are unimportant, and I do not hear them.
On the matter of the move to go in and get Maduro--drug charges, gun possession, theft of US property, he's a general a-hole, whatever: some tout the value of common law. Precedent is at the heart of common law, and there are quite a number of precedents for the Trump move, including recently the collection of Noreiga, the execution of bin Laden.
I say "Hear, hear" for the Maduro op.
As for Trump, the 2nd Amendment, and the NFA, either we're a nation of laws, or we're a nation of men and personal opinion. The NFA is, of course entirely Constitutional, however much we might all dislike and decry it; it's been upheld by the Supreme Court; and Court rulings join the suite of laws of our nation unless and until they're overruled by the Court or the Congress.
Eric Hines
The Constitution is the basic positive law; and the first landmark Supreme Court ruling holds that anything repugnant to the Constitution has no force. In our day we've seen a great expansion of gun rights in the positive law, but none in the natural law, which the 2nd Amendment codifies for us. I'll continue to push for the positive law to come to reflect the Constitution's very clear statement on the matter; but if, somehow, some future government should amend the Constitution to make it (in turn) repugnant to the natural law, I will stand on the natural law.
"shall not be infringed". End of story. Every arms control law in the country is unconstitutional.
I'll stand with you on the Constitution, with one quibble.
We've seen no expansion of gun rights in the Constitution's positive law; what we've seen is an increasingly expanded and clear acknowledgment of our intrinsic rights to life and liberty, along with our pursuit of happiness, in the form of increased clarity of our basic right to keep and bear arms.
Our gun rights are immutable, flowing from their necessity for protecting those intrinsic rights. We're just seeing a clearer articulation of our gun rights.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment