It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Arizona Declare War?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Arizona could issue letters of Mark and Reprisal to those citizens willing to accept them whereby they would then extract remuneration from Mexico - in whatever way god will let them.

America has a ton o' mercenaries lately. They could be put to use and paid with what they manage to 'extract'.




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Arizona could issue letters of Mark and Reprisal to those citizens willing to accept them whereby they would then extract remuneration from Mexico - in whatever way god will let them.

Could we leave these "marks and reprisals" on their corpses? stamped "Paid in Full"?


[edit on 1-5-2010 by jbmitch]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
In 1838 Maine declared war against Canada over a border dispute. The end result was the US government getting involved and working with Canada to establish the current border. This declaration of war was not deemed unconstitutional, and it was an official declaration.

Granted, today the federal government has a lot more power and continually seeks to hold individual states more and more powerless. However, the Supreme Court still generally holds to precedent, so given the history of the US, yes, it is legal for an individual state to declare war against another nation.

Given the two dramatically different federal responses, though -- in 1838 the government supported itself, in 2010 the government condemns itself and takes the side of a foreign power -- it's anyone's guess how this may turn out.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Major Discrepancy
 


This is a quote by the thread moderator on page two:

"Court still generally holds to precedent, so given the history of the US, yes, it is legal for an individual state to declare war against another nation. "


[edit on 1-5-2010 by jbmitch]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
well I had called it the Alien War in another thread
but I think the act of declaring war is kinda outdated.
As no entity in the US has legally declared war on
another since WW2.

So I assume it would be the same here.

You do not have to declare war
to be at war.

However, that doesn't sit well with our Constitution
but it is done, none the less.

There hasnt been a real "war" for the US since WWII. Sooo yeah. Even the Iraq stuff now isnt really a war. I think they call it a Policing Action, but I may be wrong on that. Before you jump in an correct me about the Iraq thing, what country are we currently engaged with in a war? None.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbmitch
reply to post by Jenna
 


It takes an act of congress to engage the US as a country in a "State of War" I'm talking a State going solo! Bad idea...shouldnt that be up to the state of Arizona to decide?



well, the state of AZ could go it alone, but there is a web of reciprocity that entangles all the nearby & even far flung 49 other states...

that is what the Federal gov't is for... to settle these autonomous and adventurious actions by individual states
which could drag other states into a frey they do not want !



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbmitch
reply to post by Jenna
 


It takes an act of congress to engage the US as a country in a "State of War" I'm talking a State going solo! Bad idea...shouldnt that be up to the state of Arizona to decide?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbmitch
reply to post by Jenna
 


It takes an act of congress to engage the US as a country in a "State of War" I'm talking a State going solo! Bad idea...shouldnt that be up to the state of Arizona to decide?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
sworry... i was cleaning my keyboard

[edit on 1-5-2010 by St Udio]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


well, the state of AZ could go it alone, but there is a web of reciprocity that entangles all the nearby & even far flung 49 other states...

that is what the Federal gov't is for... to settle these autonomous and adventurious actions by individual states
which could drag other states into a frey they do not want

Good point, and maybe why the Federal Governement has responded so in-effectively and why Arizona may have to step up to the plate and get something going for themselves...all those Arizona citizens that pay Federal Taxes..better spent in Arizona then ..say...Iraq?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


You'd also have to take into account the amount of firepower the cartels could bring into this seeing that you would be messing with the drug-cash flow.

Also if the Fed issued an order to cease and the state refused would this cause the Fed to also engage the state like during the Civil war?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbmitch
reply to post by Major Discrepancy
 


This is a quote by the thread moderator on page two:

"Court still generally holds to precedent, so given the history of the US, yes, it is legal for an individual state to declare war against another nation. "


A moderator an expert does not make; so says the Major.

The Aroostook "War" was undeclared and settled without a shot being fired:



The Aroostook War was an undeclared confrontation in 1838-39 between the United States and Great Britain over the international boundary between British North America (Canada) and Maine. The dispute resulted in a mutually accepted border between the state of Maine and the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. It is called a war because not only were tensions high and rhetoric heated in Maine and New Brunswick, but troops were raised and armed on both sides and marched to the disputed border. President Martin Van Buren sent General Winfield Scott to work out a compromise. A neutral area was created and the controversy gradually died down

en.wikipedia.org...


As the Major previously stated; no the state of Arizona cannot declare war. You may have some sophomoric attachment to the idea, but that changes neither the U.S. Constitution or the Enumerated Power of the Legislative Branch. The Major suggests a little more reading of his erudite posts and supporting linked material and less of your juvenile attempts to dispute irrefutable facts.

Dismissed.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Oh just let a few more people get killed, police/officials get shot at and up and you will see the citizens really outcrying to the state government and looking at those local governments, and asking the questions they do not want to hear. It is getting worse on the boarder and will keep going and doing such as I have seen reports where the drug cartels are getting their people trained in paramilitary maneuvers, to be able to do hits with out impunity on both sides of the boarders. I believe a few more murders by illegale immigrants on this side of the boarders may start to turn those who are against such may end up being stronger calls for action.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jbmitch
 


No, I really don't think it should. As others have mentioned, one state declaring war would end with the rest of us dragged into it as well. The country can't afford another war, and a single state certainly can't go it alone. Even if they tried, the first time they were attacked the federal government and the rest of the states would step in to either help or try to get that state to end their war efforts. Either way one state declaring war would drag the rest of us into it.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Major Discrepancy
reply to post by jbmitch
 


The Major says no, and here is why:



Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence(sic) and general Welfare of the United States


The president has usurped the constitution and congress has been negligent of their duty to protect our borders. What more do we need to know or do?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jbmitch
 


No, it cannot. Only the Congress can declare war. Read here.....


Article 1, Sec. 8 (11) states, "Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war." The president is commander-in-chief, but he must fulfill his responsibilities within the framework established by the Constitution and subject to the control of Congress.

Today, of course, presidents prefer to make the decision for war themselves. In effect, American presidents claim to possess power comparable to, if not greater than, that of the onetime head of the Soviet communist party. As then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger rightly criticized the Evil Empire: "Now who among the Soviets voted that they should invade Afghanistan? Maybe one, maybe five men in the Kremlin. Who has the ability to change that and bring them home? Maybe one, maybe five men in the Kremlin. Nobody else. And that is, I think, the height of immorality."

Now who among Americans has voted to attack, say, Iraq? Should one man in the White House make that decision, it would also be the height of immorality.

One of the founders’ criticisms of the British king was that he could unilaterally drag his nation into war. President Abraham Lincoln, a "strong" president apt to act on his own authority, nevertheless reflected: "Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object."

The Constitution’s framers consciously rejected such a system. Still, some Americans opposed the proposed Constitution because they feared that it gave the president too much authority. Don’t worry, explained that great friend of executive power Alexander Hamilton. The president’s power "would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the land and naval forces . . . while that of the British King extends to the declaring of war."

The founders wrote the Constitution as they did because they feared that presidents would act as they do now. Explained James Madison in 1793, it is necessary to adhere to the "fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature."

Source



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Absolutely they can as a sovereign nation! If it is not forbidden in the constitution then they can. And just because the several states enumerated the declaration of war as a power of congress does not remove that right from individual states who granted that right to congress. No state would have signed on to the constitution if they thought they could not defend themselves against attack. The constitution was mainly a mutual defense pact. If the congress refused to back them they have the right to defend their borders if under attack as they are now.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Major Discrepancy
reply to post by jbmitch
 


The Major says no, and here is why:

>snip<

Declaring War is an Enumerated Power of the Legislative Branch.

Dismissed.
However, although it is assumed so, the Constitution in that context does not define "War".
Therefore, is it safe to assume a city, county or state declaring "war" on gangs, graffiti, homelessness, hunger, poverty, illiteracy ... is unconstitutional?


[edit on 5/1/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Arizona can declare war...if they secede.

But don't you worry, the feds have a solution, it's called SPP, which calls for a north american union ``security perimeter``... so instead of protecting the US-Mexico border, they gonna put US-Canadian-Mexico troops at the Mexico southern border... and all the mexicans and canadians will be able to go wherever they want in north america... of course with a north american ID.

But until this is achieved, the feds will let the illegals run wild because it's in their interest to do so, so we end up asking for a solution and they bring us that solution.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Vitchilo]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join