[118869] in Cypherpunks
Re: Inferno: The Constitution & Gun Rights: It's bigger than the 2nd alone (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Sat Oct 9 10:11:51 1999
From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-Id: <199910091405.JAA09955@einstein.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 09:05:25 -0500 (CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 22:51:11 -1000
> From: Reese <reeza@flex.com>
> Subject: Re: Inferno: The Constitution & Gun Rights: It's bigger than
> the 2nd alone (fwd)
> Jim, did you originate this, or fwd it?
I wrote it. I always at least try to give credit where credit is due.
> Is this addressed in an EO? EO's are constitutional, so said the supremes,
> I accept this so long as they only apply to the executive branch (and no
> one else, directly or by extension), so the question therefore includes a
> reparse to: Are the armed forces part of the executive branch, either
> before or after activation by congress? By what exingency does the CIC
> claim to maintain purpetual status as acting CIC?
Then the SC is wrong. The *ONLY* order that a president can give that has
ANY authority outside of the exeuctive branch is through a law proposed by
Congress and sent to POTUS for signature or veto. The 10th *requires* a
delegate in the Constitution for *any* action of the federals. So unless
POTUS can point to a specific set of sentences in the Constitution then
Congress and POTUS must agree to create a law. Has not happened. The
Constitution does *not* permit any legal action on the people of the United
States except through a single legal process, Congress and POTUS must agree
it's needed. An EO has no effect on *anyone* outside the executive branch.
Congress has *never* submitted a law with presidential signature that *gives*
POTUS this authority.
The military is a part of the *legislative* branch, they're regulated and
operated by Congress *unless* they *loan* them to the executive branch. It
is one of the fundamental checks and balances to keep the executibe branch
(headed by one man and hence open to abuse) in control by forcing a
(semi)public discussion on the floors of Congress for their use. If POTUS
wants the military it's supposed to be a sufficiently compeling reason to
convince a majority of Congress to agree.
> What was used as precedent to maintain a standing army for greater than 2
> years? Does it somehow involve the civil war as I've heard suggested
> elsewhere, or not?
You miss the point, it isn't that we have continous military operations.
That isn't unconstitutional. What *is* unconstitutional is *any* commitment
of a US citizen or a contract for supplies or equipment to the military for
longer than 2 years (ie 4 year enlistments are unconstitutional, 4 > 2). All
these decade long military contracts for airplanes, tanks, subs, etc. are
unconstitutional. Constitutionaly they must be reviews and funding must be
voted on *every* two years. It's supposed to be a pain in the ass, and
therefore requires a compelling reason, to keep the military operating.
____________________________________________________________________
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full
of passionate intensity.
W.B. Yeats
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
