Dr. Scott Bradley Discusses Constitutionality Of Missile Strike On Syria

constitutionparty.com:

In under 8 minutes Dr. Scott Bradley, PhD in Constitutional Law and 2016 Constitution Party VP Nominee, touches on the Constitutionality of the recent missile strike launched against Syria.

 

For those saying the President has the power to launch an attack:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States:

[The Congress shall have Power To…] Declare war

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 & 2 of the Constitution of the United States:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…

 

For those citing that Commander-In-Chief = ability to unilaterally launch attacks in which Americans are not in imminent danger:

Thomas Jefferson, in 1801 as President:

He was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”

Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton:

The President is to be the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. He is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment; to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; to convene, on extraordinary occasions, both houses of the legislature, or either of them, and, in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and to commission all officers of the United States.” In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: — First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.1 The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States.

 

For those insinuating that an Act, Treaty, Resolution, or international law warrants usurpation of the Constitution and carries the same weight as a Constitutional Amendment which changes the Constitution:

St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States:

Let it be supposed, for example, that the president and senate should stipulate by treaty with any foreign nation, that in case of war between that nation and any other, the United States should immediately declare against that nation: Can it be supposed that such a treaty would be so far the law of the land, as to take from the house of representatives their constitutional right to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of such a declaration of war, and to determine and act thereon, according to their own judgement?”

 

Also… James Madison, Constitutional Debates

Does it follow, because this power [treaty power] is given to Congress. That it is absolute and unlimited? I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.”

 

And Thomas Jefferson, Manual of Parliamentary Practice:

“By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are regulated by treaty and cannot be otherwise regulated. . . . It must have meant to except out of these rights reserved to the states, for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

 

Obvious logical flaws with support for the strikes…

Who did it, with proof, please? – People are so convinced that Assad conducted the chemical weapon attacks. Why would he? Assad has changed the tide of the war over the past couple of years and has finally even been winning the P.R. War. None of this matters because it isn’t Constitutional, but there’s no logic behind an Assad attack.

But the innocent children!1. Don’t we hate when liberals demagogue and use the heart-wrenching, doomsday, or Alinskyite tactics? Why would conservatives resort to them? 2. We killed 4 innocent children in those strikes. If this provokes a war, how many of our children will die in a war that we have no business being in? 3. Millions of innocent AMERICAN children are murdered at the hands of Planned Parenthood. Where is the outcry regarding the genocide at home? Isn’t Trump’s daughter lobbying for PP now? Would there be rage if it were Planned Parenthood being attacked due to what they do to innocent children and women daily, or is that ok?

Was the United States in imminent danger? – Were we on the brink, with verifiable intelligence, of being attacked by Syria? Even if someone states that we were, intelligence informed us about WMD’s in Iraq, none there. They told us that Benghazi was caused by a video. Instead, our Intelligence agencies were running guns from Benghazi to Syrian rebels, aka TO ISIS!

Are we now siding with ISIS, against Christians? – It is common knowledge that Assad is fighting ISIS and has been protecting the persecuted Coptic Christians for quite some time. Are we not assisting ISIS by firing missiles on the Syrian military? Are we fighting against Christianity in the Middle East?

Ohhhhh the Hypocrisy! – Donald J. Trump in 2013 after a previous, supposed chemical weapon attack by Assad on his people via Twitter: “The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!”

 

 

Previous quotes and citations extracted from Dr. Bradley’s “To Preserve The Nation Webinars at http://www.freedomsrisingsun.com

22 thoughts on “Dr. Scott Bradley Discusses Constitutionality Of Missile Strike On Syria

  1. Andy

    It is a pretty pathetic state of affairs for the Libertarian Party when the Constitution Party’s presidential ticket of Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley is more libertarian than the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

  2. Floyd Whitley

    “For those insinuating that an Act, Treaty, Resolution, or international law warrants usurpation of the Constitution…”

    Whatever.

    Treaty IS law under the Constitution, pursuant to Article VI, clause 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.”

    Far be it from me to “insinuate,” but you apparently overpaid for the education.

  3. dL

    Treaty IS law under the Constitution, pursuant to Article VI, clause 2.

    Actually, it is open question RE: constitutional limitations of treaty power in the same vein of said limitations on statutory law. If a Treaty, say an International Internet Pornography ban, obviously usurped the first amendment, could it then be struck down by the courts vis a vis serving as “the supreme law of the land”? While there is no precedent for it, court decisions that have tangentially broached the topic hinted at it not being an unqualified power.

  4. Tony From Long Island

    Again . . . . Andy taking shots at a retired former nominee. Kinda like how Darth Trump continues to mention Hillary and Obama. . . . Dude . . . it’s over! Move on . . .

  5. Andy

    “Andrew McCarrick
    April 14, 2017 at 19:00
    Andy, which is precisely why Johnson got over 3% and Castle didn’t even break 1%.”

    This had a lot more to do with money and the amount of states where each ticket had ballot access.

    Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both got a lot more votes that Gary Johnson and Darrell Castle, and Jill Stein, and every other candidate for President who qualified for the ballot in at least one state, combined. Does this make them wonderful?

    There was real potential this year for the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket to get a lot more votes than what Johnson/Weld received, so they under-performed if anything. Also, what is the point of a Libertarian ticket getting votes if that ticket runs against the party’s platform to the degree that Johnson/Weld did? Getting votes for the sake of getting votes is defeats the purpose of the existence of the Libertarian Party.

  6. Cody Quirk

    No other L.P. candidate running in the L.P.’s primary would have gotten more votes then Gary Johnson last November; Johnson underperformed in the election because of his gaffes, not his views.
    The L.P. still got almost 4.5 million votes and additional ballot access for 2018, along with electing various candidates to office.

    Castle did break Baldwin’s 2008 record, yet the CP was knocked off the ballot in 2 states on election night, and is down to 12 states they are on. Furthermore, their appeal is too limited for them to survive as a national minor party for the next 10 years -with how secular and socially liberal American society is becoming.

    However, defending Augustus Invictus and alt right entryism in the L.P. doesn’t help your credibility much among Libertarians, Andy.

  7. Cody Quirk

    Can’t you post under your real name, instead of acting like a coward? Just wondering?

  8. dL

    Not sure what arguing about the Libertarian ticket has to do with the OT.

    Jacobs’ Law. The adage that any online online discussion that includes participation by Andy Jacobs will invariably devolve to a comparison involving William Weld.

  9. Andy

    “Cody Quirk
    April 17, 2017 at 10:02
    No other L.P. candidate running in the L.P.’s primary would have gotten more votes then Gary Johnson last November; Johnson underperformed in the election because of his gaffes, not his views.”

    1) How do you know this? We have no way of knowing how many votes Petersen, McAfee, or Perry, would have received had they been nominated, or the late Dr. Feldman (had he been nominated and lived), or anyone else. We do know that the circumstances surrounding the presidential election last year were the most favorable under which the Libertarian Party has ever run a presidential ticket, so there’s an excellent chance that the LP ticket would have received more votes than average no matter who we put on it.

    2) We should not be involved in this stuff just to get votes for the sake of getting votes. Our mission is to move society in the direction of the Libertarian Party’s platform, and running candidates who run against the party’s platform, and/or severely water down the party’s platform, both of which the Johnson/Weld campaign did to a large extent, is contrary to that mission.

    3) Lots of the votes that Johnson/Weld received were PROTEST votes. These votes were not so much for Johnson/Weld, or vote the Libertarian Party, or for the libertarian philosophy, as they were votes AGAINST Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

    4) I have heard negative comments from random members of the public about the Johnson/Weld ticket, not just because of Johnson’s gaffes, and not just because of Johnson and Weld sucking up to the likes of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, but also because of their lack of libertarian principles.

    “The L.P. still got almost 4.5 million votes and additional ballot access for 2018, along with electing various candidates to office.”

    1) See my comment above about getting votes for the sake of getting votes.

    2) There was real potential for the LP presidential ticket to get a lot more votes than what Johnson/Weld received.

    3) Yes, the LP presidential vote total got ballot access in a few states, but there are other states where ballot access was retained by candidates running for other offices, and there are other states where ballot access has nothing to do with vote totals. Also, the number of elected Libertarians is WAY down from what it was 14 years ago, when there were over 600 elected Libertarians. I looked it up for today, and right now there are 145 elected Libertarians, and they are all in low level offices spread out across the country, which means that the LP does not control anything. The LP has not elected anyone to a seat in a state legislature since 2000, and the LP has not elected anyone to a seat in a state legislature that actually finished up their term as a Libertarian since either 1998 or 1996. So in terms of electing people to office, the LP has gone way downhill.

    “Castle did break Baldwin’s 2008 record, yet the CP was knocked off the ballot in 2 states on election night, and is down to 12 states they are on. Furthermore, their appeal is too limited for them to survive as a national minor party for the next 10 years -with how secular and socially liberal American society is becoming.”

    The Constitution Party is in bad shape, no doubt. This is due in large part to internal party dysfunction and lack out outreach activity (the same problems plague the LP, but the LP has been around longer, and the LP also attracts more people from across the political spectrum).

    I had a conversation not too long ago with somebody I know in the Constitution where I told them that I thought that they’d be more successful if they dropped the religious talk (they could keep the anti-abortion plank though), and promoted themselves as being a strict constitutionalist party rather than as a conservative party. This person said that they agree with me, and they claimed that they are moving in that direction.

    Regardless of how the Constitution Party is doing as a whole, my point was that the Castle/Bradley ticket was more libertarian than the LP’s ticket of Johnson/Weld (who I’m not sure they should even be called libertarian at all). and that although they ran on a shoe string budget, they still did better than a lot of people expected them to do in the election results. I’m sure that some of this was because of the favorable set of circumstances that this election presented, but look at how much better Castle’s campaign did than the campaign of Rocky de la Fuente. Rocky spent a heck of a lot more money than Castle, yet Castle got a lot more votes than Rocky.

    “However, defending Augustus Invictus and alt right entryism in the L.P. doesn’t help your credibility much among Libertarians, Andy.”

    I am NOT a supporter of Invictus. I did NOT endorse Invictus for the LP’s US Senate nomination. I am not even sure what to think of Invictus. I think that it is possible that he’s a government plant, or that some of his supporters are government plants. I also think that it is possible that he’s simply misunderstood and being unfairly demonized. I DO NOT KNOW what the real story is with the guy, so until I get more facts, the jury is still out for me.

    Now as far as alt.right entryism into the LP goes, and me supposedly supporting this, I don’t know what you are talking about. There have long been internal battles within the LP between different wings of the party/movement. This is nothing new. I don’t believe that cultural preferences or lifestyle choices have anything to do with libertarianism, because libertarianism is about the non-aggression principle, so people could have a wide variety of cultural preferences/lifestyle choices, and still be libertarians, just as long as they do not initiate force and fraud against others.

    I also do not consider political strategy issues to be the same as philosophical issues. People can have similar philosophical goals, but pursue different strategies to get there. Some strategies are better than others, and I think that there are lots of libertarians out there who are weak when it comes to political strategy, although they may be good at philosophy (if more libertarians were good at political strategy, the Libertarian Party and movement would be a lot more successful right now).

  10. Andy

    “dL
    April 17, 2017 at 10:43
    ‘Not sure what arguing about the Libertarian ticket has to do with the OT.’
    Jacobs’ Law. The adage that any online online discussion that includes participation by Andy Jacobs will invariably devolve to a comparison involving William Weld.”

    It is April of 2017. The presidential election was just 5 months ago. Considering the amount of effort than the LP puts into the presidential election, and considering that this is the office to which the highest percent of the public pay attention, talk of the Johnson/Weld ticket is a very relevant topic in a wide variety of discussions.

  11. Andy

    “DJ
    April 17, 2017 at 08:22
    Not sure what arguing about the Libertarian ticket has to do with the OT.”

    Well let’s see. Scott Bradley and Bill Weld were both candidates for Vice President in an election that was held 5 months ago. Bradley just issued a policy statement on foreign policy and military interventionism that was quite libertarian, even though he did not run as a Libertarian Party’s candidate for Vice President. Bill Weld, the Libertarian Party’s candidate for Vice President, has been a known warmonger who enthusiastically supported both US wars in Iraq, and who endorsed candidates who were warmongers/interventionists, such as George HW Bush, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich. Also, Weld’s presidential running mate, Gary Johnson, said that he supports “humanitarian wars” (whatever this means), and that if he won the election, he’d offer to appoint Mitt Romney as Secretary of State, and that Bill Weld would not just be his Vice President, he’d be his co-President.

  12. DJ

    Andy
    April 17, 2017 at 11:12

    “DJ
    April 17, 2017 at 08:22
    Not sure what arguing about the Libertarian ticket has to do with the OT.”

    Well let’s see. Scott Bradley and Bill Weld were both candidates for Vice President in an election that was held 5 months ago. Bradley just issued a policy statement on foreign policy and military interventionism that was quite libertarian, even though he did not run as a Libertarian Party’s candidate for Vice President. Bill Weld, the Libertarian Party’s candidate for Vice President, has been a known warmonger who enthusiastically supported both US wars in Iraq, and who endorsed candidates who were warmongers/interventionists, such as George HW Bush, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich. Also, Weld’s presidential running mate, Gary Johnson, said that he supports “humanitarian wars” (whatever this means), and that if he won the election, he’d offer to appoint Mitt Romney as Secretary of State, and that Bill Weld would not just be his Vice President, he’d be his co-President.
    ……………..

    The OT:

    Dr. Scott Bradley Discusses Constitutionality Of Missile Strike On Syria
    …………….

    No offense intended, but; I think it would behoove everyone reading this to discuss the OT and save the bickering about who did or didn’t do what when, since in fact, it is under Trumps watch that the missile strikes took place and which I’m pretty sure are not constitutional IF the Constitution is to mean anything. It’s clear that none of those being argued about had anything to do with it, and I’m pretty sure we all know neither Johnson or Weld were the preferred candidates for libertarians except those who choose to not distinguish between “l” and “L”.

    Let’s instead argue about “words mean things”, or they don’t.

    It’s clear that way too many people just accept that politicians ignore original definition and intentionally re-define words to suit their needs, and THAT is the problem, regardless of party persuasion. How should that be addressed when the players (politicians and potential candidates for political office) are merely puppets who do as they’re told, including Trump, and I have to wonder what Ron Paul would really do as POTUS, and I use JFK as the example of one who publicly stood up to the war mongers.

    There will be no change in direction as long as the populace accepts authority figures as smart, right or better than. The change has to begin at home and with those we are close to in re-educating them, one at a time. Plant seeds, nurture seeds and they produce fruit. We didn’t get to where we are over night. It’s taken years to tear down the notion the country was founded on, and it’s always easier (and faster) to tear something down than it is to build from new or rebuild that which is broken. It’s simple, basic mechanics and bickering about who said or believes what is looking to place blame where it isn’t necessary and fixes nothing.

  13. Tony From Long Island

    should read . . . I’m begging you!!! Please. Put down the keyboard!! 😛

  14. Cody Quirk

    Andy, rather then wasting time on giving you a full and detailed rebuttal; I’m just going to say that If you think you are going to get anywhere in the L.P. with your criticism and mental gymnastics that you use in peddling the sheer inaccuracy of Castle being more libertarian then GJ, or in obssessing on our former 2016 presidential candidate -of which has absolutely NO intention of running for president in 2020 -you really need to think again and come back to reality.

    You ignored my url links of accurate articles that discussed Castle’s comments on being libertarian, and on his views and stances of same sex marriage and LGBT lifestyles -which are quite unlibertarian, despite how Castle watered down his views and ignored the vile fundamentalist rhetoric on LGBT lifestyles spewed by Riley Hood and others in the CP during the 2016 election; and yet Castle mirrored such rhetoric to an extent in the past.

    Having been in the CP for many years and dealing with the internal fiefdoms in power in that party- Today, I would gladly support and vote for a candidate or new party officer that used to be a moderate and formerly part of the twin-evil system, even if he/she was a former member of the CFR -over a candidate/new party officer that shares views on LGBT rights and lifestyles that mirror the Westboro Baptist Church and tries in vain to suck up to Religious Right voters and advocates for sectarianism and religious authoritarianism in government; when it comes between 2 such choices, the former is the lesser evil. So you really do not understand the CP like I do, at all; I take a former political schmuck over an extremist demagogue; since I had to work with such people often when I was younger and politically ignorant back then.

    Yet you can go on ahead and obsessively continue to beat the dead horse that is our former ticket, which still performed well last November and helped us greatly with ballot access while the CP only broke it’s previous record by just a few thousand more votes and were still knocked off the ballot in 2 states in the same election. The L.P. is still in a big upswing compared to the previous elections from the last several years and returning back to the big numbers of elected office holders that we scored in the past.
    But do go ahead and keep doing your petty mental gymnastics here, Andy; because I’ve been more entertained then offended by them, and your posts.

    Time to refill my bowl of popcorn 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *