Bill Blodden, you suggest that ISIS got its weapons from non-extremist Syrian rebels (who defected to ISIS or were defeated by ISIS, I guess). My understanding is that ISIS received weapons from paymasters in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps Qatar, and then enlarged its arsenal as it defeated (or forced defections from) rival Syrian rebels, and then further enlarged its arsenal as it overran Iraqi army positions and took American arms abandoned by the Iraqi army. I guess ultimately money and weapons come indirectly from the U.S. (because it supports and supplies Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, non-ISIS Syrian rebels, and the Iraqi army). The militarization of international aid and nation-building is certainly one of the root problems.
A blueprint for peace? Have you read the charter of the United Nations? Or how about the writings of peace activists, visionaries, and spiritual leaders such as 'Abdu'l-Baha, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Malread Maguire, etc.? Or speeches of various winners of the Nobel Peace Prize? There are many blueprints for peace. It's up to us to build the structures outlined in these blueprints.
You claim that there is a real constitutional issue involved when an American president engages in an act of war allowed by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. Yes, this is a constitutional issue. But, it's a settled issue.
Read the U.S. Constitution. Article VI, paragraph 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Consult the Congressional Record for July 28, 1945 (U.S. Senate ratifies United Nations Charter)
Consult the United Nations Charter, especially Articles 24, 42, and 43.
Consult United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.
Anonymous, you state "there are no court cases" in response to Baskell's assertion that "an entire body of constitutional scholarship has established that a 'declaration of war' is not synonymous with the president's decision to engage in war."
In the related question of whether Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution would allow a president to follow UN Security Council resolutions as if they were the "supreme law of the land" there is considerable case law establishing that treaties obligations do have the force of law. For example:
Ware v Hylton (1796) and
Hopkirk v. Bell (1807) and
Foster v. Neilson (1829) and
the Head Money Cases (1884) and
Geofroy v Riggs (1890) and
Nielsen v. Johnson (1929) and
Kolovrat v. Oregon (1961)
No Jim, Obama doesn't want to be respected by conservatives, and he isn't like LBJ, and he wouldn't start a war to show he's not weak. Obama just fights in struggles where he either knows he can win or he thinks there is a high probability that he can win. He doesn't waste time on lost causes or battles that won't end in some pragmatic victory. He's been that way since he was a state senator in Springfield, or even a community organizer in Chicago. The behaviors that look to people who don't know him as if he is conceding to conservatives to win their respect are in fact the result of him taking a careful look at the votes he has and the political realities, and making a calculation about whether good legislation will be the outcome. Fighting stupid conservatives may feel good, but if it doesn't achieve some desired result beyond feeling good, why do it? Obama has a strong moral compass, and he's not about to start a war with Iran. But no, he won't speak out against what stupid war-mongers are saying, because he's too busy getting other things done.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Bill Blodden, you suggest that ISIS got its weapons from non-extremist Syrian rebels (who defected to ISIS or were defeated by ISIS, I guess). My understanding is that ISIS received weapons from paymasters in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps Qatar, and then enlarged its arsenal as it defeated (or forced defections from) rival Syrian rebels, and then further enlarged its arsenal as it overran Iraqi army positions and took American arms abandoned by the Iraqi army. I guess ultimately money and weapons come indirectly from the U.S. (because it supports and supplies Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, non-ISIS Syrian rebels, and the Iraqi army). The militarization of international aid and nation-building is certainly one of the root problems.
A blueprint for peace? Have you read the charter of the United Nations? Or how about the writings of peace activists, visionaries, and spiritual leaders such as 'Abdu'l-Baha, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Malread Maguire, etc.? Or speeches of various winners of the Nobel Peace Prize? There are many blueprints for peace. It's up to us to build the structures outlined in these blueprints.
Rojo,
You claim that there is a real constitutional issue involved when an American president engages in an act of war allowed by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. Yes, this is a constitutional issue. But, it's a settled issue.
Read the U.S. Constitution. Article VI, paragraph 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Consult the Congressional Record for July 28, 1945 (U.S. Senate ratifies United Nations Charter)
Consult the United Nations Charter, especially Articles 24, 42, and 43.
Consult United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.
Anonymous, you state "there are no court cases" in response to Baskell's assertion that "an entire body of constitutional scholarship has established that a 'declaration of war' is not synonymous with the president's decision to engage in war."
In the related question of whether Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution would allow a president to follow UN Security Council resolutions as if they were the "supreme law of the land" there is considerable case law establishing that treaties obligations do have the force of law. For example:
Ware v Hylton (1796) and
Hopkirk v. Bell (1807) and
Foster v. Neilson (1829) and
the Head Money Cases (1884) and
Geofroy v Riggs (1890) and
Nielsen v. Johnson (1929) and
Kolovrat v. Oregon (1961)
No Jim, Obama doesn't want to be respected by conservatives, and he isn't like LBJ, and he wouldn't start a war to show he's not weak. Obama just fights in struggles where he either knows he can win or he thinks there is a high probability that he can win. He doesn't waste time on lost causes or battles that won't end in some pragmatic victory. He's been that way since he was a state senator in Springfield, or even a community organizer in Chicago. The behaviors that look to people who don't know him as if he is conceding to conservatives to win their respect are in fact the result of him taking a careful look at the votes he has and the political realities, and making a calculation about whether good legislation will be the outcome. Fighting stupid conservatives may feel good, but if it doesn't achieve some desired result beyond feeling good, why do it? Obama has a strong moral compass, and he's not about to start a war with Iran. But no, he won't speak out against what stupid war-mongers are saying, because he's too busy getting other things done.