[Radar]

I read on your bio that it says that you are an award winning libetarian and a constitutional scholar. What awards and how did you come about your scholarly status?

I've been a winnner of the Lights of Liberty Award from the Advocates for Self-government for several years. And I became a Constitutional scholar the same way all Constitutional scholars did. I studied. I have read volumes upon volumes of books and other information regarding the founders, the revolutionary war, natural law, etc. But even if all I had read was the Constitution itself, I'd know more about it than the vast majority of those in government including the Supreme Court, The President, and Cognress who routinely violate it.

ad hominum sirrah? One would consider such an attack unprofessional from a self-professed scholar.

It was in response to your ad hominum attack. If you want to sling mud, I can do it with the best of 'em.

Citation please.

Let's start with the phrase "common DEFENSE" which is located not only in the preamble but also in Article 1 Section 8 which lists the only 18 things that congress may take part in or legislate. Government is prohibited from taking part in or legislating anything not specifically enumerated so the vast majority of the federal government is unconstitutional but that's best left for another discussion.

Clause 1 of Article 1 section 8 describes what government may do and in this case we're talking about providing "common DEFENSE". The following clauses describe what government may do in order to accomplish what is listed in clause 1.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clauses 10-13 of Article 1 Section 8 describe pertain to the military. It grants government the power to create a military (again for the purpose of providing a "common DEFENSE"), to punish pirates and other attacks against us on the ocean, to declare war, raise armies, and create a navy (again these powers are granted and limited to accomplishing the goals of Clause 1 which include "common DEFENSE" but not "starting unprovoked wars" which would require an OFFENSIVE military rather than a defensive one.)

Keep in mind the founders had risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor (many died in the process) to escape from imperialistic tyrrany and they specifically gave congress and NOT the president the power to make war because they didn't think any one person should be able to bring us to war and that only a large majority of a great number of men should be able to send men to die. They wanted the process of making war to be difficult.

Here are the clauses in question...

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Citation please. Also, starting war has nothing to do with the enumerated powers directly

Article V describes the amendment process. Nothing may be changed in the Constitution other than through a Constitutional amendment. Article VI paragraph 2 also defines the Constitution as the highest law in the land which means it is above all others. Therefore if someone wanted to change the powers granted to any of the three branches of government as described in the Constitution, they would have to do it through an amendment. And yes, starting wars (in our defense) is directly related to the enumerated powers granted to congress.

According to whom?

According to the highest law in the land, the Constitution. If the Constitution says slavery is illegal (13th amendment) and you make an act of congress that says slavery is legal, it is unconstitutional in its face and doesn't require judicial review. The Constitution is above the Supreme Court and the decisions of the Supreme Court do not shape the Constitution or change it.

How exeactly does M v M apply?

Marbury vs. Madison applies because the very first Supreme Court said if any laws, court decisions, act of congress, etc. are in direct contradiction to the Constitution, they are null and void and we are under no obligation to follow them. In other words if Congress makes an act granting war making powers to the president (contradictory to the contents of the Constitution) it is automatically null and void without judicial review and is unconstitutional.

Citation please.

I've cited it many times already. The U.S. Military is defined and described in the Constitution as being a DEFENSIVE one. The very definition of defense means one does not attack unless attacked. Starting wars against those who have not attacked and are not in the process of attacking you can not be considered defense by any stretch of the imagination.

Are we going to have a case "Utah Woman 2: The Constitution Chronicles" here?

That's up to you. You can accept the Constitution as it is written which defines and limits the U.S. military for the purpose of DEFENDING the ships and land of America or you can sit around and try to twist it to your own liking.

The simple truth is if the American government abided by the strict limitations on their powers within the Constitution, the entire world would be safer. The founders were against military interventionism.

I'm all for trading freely with all nations, but only defending our own. We should make non-aggression peace treaties with them, but none that include using our military to defend any nation but our own.

If we did this, we'd hardly find an enemy on earth but if someone did attack us, we'd be able to fight them off easily.