Gotta see it!

Chat with other listeners of the Nicole Marie show here!
-- On the Air from 8 AM - 1 PM

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Shapley » Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:24 am

Rich,

RE:And has the need for the militia now been replaced by our armed forces?>>


The Constitution prohibits the United States government from maintaining a standing army except in time of war, a prohibition we have ignored since the end of WWII, using the concept of a "cold war" to maintain that presence. The Navy (and Marines, which are a component of the Navy) are constitutionally authorized. The Air Force, once a part of the Army, has no Constitutional provision since air power was unknown at the time of the Nations founding.

It's probably a good idea to maintain an army, since the alternative is to place the control of the nuclear weapons land arsenal in the hands of the fifty state's governors. However, speaking in strickly constitutional terms, that is not how it is supposed to be.

Thus, in answer to your question, NO, unless you favor abolishing the Constitution, or rewriting it.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby rwcrooks » Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:49 am

Shap,

What Article and section are you referring to? I'd like to check that one out.
rwcrooks
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Milwaukee

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Shapley » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:10 am

Rich,

Article I, Section 8, which reads in part:

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;


To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Ajax » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:37 am

So technically, we can use militia force along the southern border of the United States when the Border Patrol fails the citizens?

Just a thought.
Ajax
4th Chair
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Rochester, MN

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Marye » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:38 am

Originally posted by RichC:
Nicole,

The whole reason no one gets shot in Canada is out of common courtesy. The shooter knows that the shootee will have to schedule the doctor visit well in advance and doesn't want to cause any inconvenience.
Nonsense :mad:
Marye
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Shapley » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:47 am

Ajax,

I believe there was an incident a couple decades ago wherein the Governor of a Southwestern State (Texas?) threatened to call out the National Guard to patrol the border if the Feds didn't tighten up security. I don't recall the end result of that conflict, but I don't think they were ever deployed. It may have been election year posturing.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Ajax » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:49 am

``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters

Nice bit of propaganda. Last week, a man took a knife and started randomly stabbing people at a grocery store. Where were the propaganda machines then? Maybe "knives" don't fit into their agenda.
Ajax
4th Chair
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Rochester, MN

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby mmichaelson » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:51 am

As a citizen of a souther border state. . .I LOVE the fact that illegal aliens attend our schools and use my tax monies and get to go to the colleges that I paid taxes to. (can you sense the sarcasm here???)
Mandi, Proud Mommy to fawn boxer Sam and two tabby kitties: Chloe and Ty!
mmichaelson
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Aggieland (College Station, Tx)

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Ajax » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:53 am

Shapley,

Being up north, I don't hear much of the news in other regions (naturally). It was pleasing to hear the idea has been tossed around.

Regards
Ajax
4th Chair
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Rochester, MN

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby rwcrooks » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:54 am

Shapley,

Sorry, but I still don't see where it says we can only have an army in time of war.
rwcrooks
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Milwaukee

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby rwcrooks » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:11 am

Or maybe the reason that the firearm fatality rate is higher in the US is that we're just better shots. :D

I know I'm gonna hear about that one. :eek:

<small>[ 06-08-2004, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: RichC ]</small>
rwcrooks
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Milwaukee

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Shapley » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:24 am

Ajax,

RE:<<Maybe "knives" don't fit into their agenda.>>

Not Yet,

Rich,

The two year limitation on appropriations for armies is designed to prohibit the maintaining of an army during peace time. It does not state specifically that it cannot be done, but the state of the nation at its founding was such that the people would reject such an appropriation during times of peace. Of course, this was back when 'States rights' still had meaning. Notice that there is no such limitation on the maintenance of the Navy.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby rwcrooks » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:36 am

Shap,

The Navy was much more important back then, I believe. That 2-year limitation would also hold in times of war, though.
rwcrooks
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Milwaukee

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Shapley » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:47 am

Correct, but it merely had to be re-appropriated. During the course of extended conflict, it would pass with little difficulty. During times of peace, the appropriation may be more difficult to obtain.

I was browsing the Federalist, looking for applicable references, but was interrupted. I'll look later if time permits.

After WWII, the War Department and the Navy Department were abolished and replaced with the Department of Defense, which combined the operations of the two. Defense appropriations were also combined at that time, so that appropriations for the Army were no longer independent of the Navy's.

This was when they started fluoridating water, too, corrupting our precious bodily fluids, and... Oh! sorry!

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:53 am

[quote]Originally posted by RichC:
[b] Or maybe the reason that the firearm fatality rate is higher in the US is that we're just better shots. :D

[i]I know I'm gonna hear about that one. :D
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:56 am

Originally posted by Shapley:
...grant letters of marque and reprisal...
Wow. I wanna be a privateer. Yo, ho, ho, and a bottle of Geritol!
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Shapley » Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:04 pm

Selma,

I offered about a year ago. If you'll recall the aircraft carrier for sale. It may still be available.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:13 pm

Originally posted by Shapley:
...I offered about a year ago. If you'll recall the aircraft carrier for sale. It may still be available...
Does it run on coffee and Geritol?
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby Shapley » Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:25 pm

Only Venutian coffee. Oops! Wrong thread!!!!
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Gotta see it!

Postby OperaTenor » Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:27 pm

With regards to the issue of our southern border, and the importance of keeping it secure from illegal entry, we wouldn't have this problem if our leaders didn't really want it. The INS presence along our border is nothing more than grandstanding to give us the impression something is being done about the problem.

One cannot fault Mexicans for their desire for a better life for themselves and their families, and they see the US as we advertise ourselves: A land of opportunity(I have issue with their seeming inability to rectify their lot in their own country, but that's another rant.).

If you look into the problem, you'll find there are extremely minor penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens, even if they underpay them by our legal standards. Employers find it a small risk to hire illegals as a result, and therefore continue to do so.

Applying simple logic, if the opportunity was taken away, there would be far less incentive for illegals to come across, because there would be no way for them to get income. The schools, medical availability, etc., are all secondary to their drive to enter the US. If stiffer penalties were levied against employers who hire illegals, they would at least think twice before engaging in the practice, and I believe we would see the tide stemmed, at least somewhat. However, big business continues to want cheap labor, so we will continue to see our tax dollars wasted on INS agents futilely flailing away, trucking illegals back across the border so they can turn around and repeat the process.

I once worked for an employer who suddenly began hiring illegals to work in his warehouse, paying them $4.00 an hour cash(I recall the minimum wage at the time was ~$5.75/hr). Between his domestic help and the warehouse workers, he had 9 working for him at one time. I called the INS and reported him, and they said they'd get right on it. Three weeks later, nothing had happened, so I called in again to check the status. The report was "lost", so I re-reported it. Another three weeks, still nothing, so I called again. This time, the agent on the other end was quite frank with me, explaining that if they acted on the report and busted him, my employer would receive a maximum of a $250 fine per infraction(per illegal employed), nothing would be done to him for underpaying them, and the illegals would of course be deported. As a result, the INS generally sees little use in taking action on these reports, so they "back burner" them. He then said it would be useless for me to re-report it again, so I didn't bother.

All we have to do is take away the incentive for illegals to come here, and the flood would at least slow down to a trickle. But that's not what the people who call the shots really want.

:mad:
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

PreviousNext

Return to Nicole Marie

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron