US use of "soldiers of fortune"

[Redleg]

Because, as I have stated in other discussions, aside from a very tiny miniscule minority of the population who are dedicated Constitutional scholars and share a pure constitution viewpoint, it is generally only employed as a justification for surgical application to befit specific agendas or ideologies. A very general example would be how Republicans whined about states rights for years, and then when getting the White House and a majority of Congress, suddenly believed in Federal power.

That is not constitutionist that is politics for power. As before the strict constitutionalist would be agaisnt mercs for the simple reason that its a volation of a probably instituted US Law.

The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 (5 USC 3108) forbade the US Government from using Pinkerton National Detective Agency employees, or similar private police companies. In 1977, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted this statute as forbidding the US Government's employing companies offering mercenary, quasi-military forces for hire. United States ex rel. Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978).

Dont confuse Republicans for constitutionists, since neither party truely follows that path any longer

[Koga No Goshi]

That is not constitutionist that is politics for power. As before the strict constitutionalist would be agaisnt mercs for the simple reason that its a volation of a probably instituted US Law.

I'm against mercs for ethical, moral and legal reasons. And because I believe their use is counterproductive both to our armed forces and to our goal in Iraq. I'm not a strict Constitutionalist because strict Constitutionalism allowed a lot of nasty stuff like slavery and I'm not going to sell my soul to following the Constitution even if I believe that following the letter of the framework it outlines means doing unethical things.

But, we can always not hammer a dead horse and just say "we are against mercs for different reasons but we're both against mercs." I'm sorry if that is an irritant to you. ;)

[Redleg]

I'm against mercs for ethical, moral and legal reasons. And because I believe their use is counterproductive both to our armed forces and to our goal in Iraq. I'm not a strict Constitutionalist because strict Constitutionalism allowed a lot of nasty stuff like slavery and I'm not going to sell my soul to following the Constitution even if I believe that following the letter of the framework it outlines means doing unethical things.

Then you have a poor understanding of the document, because it allows for change based upon the times, hince the amendment process. Since its a changeable document a constitutionist doesn't desire that the document doesn't change, only that the change is done in accordance with the document. Anyone that claims otherwise doesn't understand the document themselves.

Your will be hard pressed to find it in the document itself, as a Federal policy to allow slaverly, it allowed for the states themselves to decide. It futher was ammended to not allow for slaverly so I find this postion about unethical stances rather interesting since your applying your ethics of today to the ethics of people in the 1780's. To completely different time periods and standards

But, we can always not hammer a dead horse and just say "we are against mercs for different reasons but we're both against mercs." I'm sorry if that is an irritant to you. ;)

Not an irritant at all, but it seems to be one for you. If you havent learned by now, statements such as this are rather

[Kadagar_AV]

When someone offer you his hand...... .... ... .... ...... ...... ?

[Koga No Goshi]

Then you have a poor understanding of the document, because it allows for change based upon the times, hince the amendment process. Since its a changeable document a constitutionist doesn't desire that the document doesn't change, only that the change is done in accordance with the document. Anyone that claims otherwise doesn't understand the document themselves.

Your will be hard pressed to find it in the document itself, as a Federal policy to allow slaverly, it allowed for the states themselves to decide. It futher was ammended to not allow for slaverly so I find this postion about unethical stances rather interesting since your applying your ethics of today to the ethics of people in the 1780's. To completely different time periods and standards



Not an irritant at all, but it seems to be one for you. If you havent learned by now, statements such as this are rather

Several of the writers knew at the time that slavery was immoral but penned the Constitution anyway to appease the status quo of southern states. If all 50 states ratify a law saying Muslims can be shot on sight or gay people can be rounded up and put in camps I'd oppose it. And I'd oppose such a law even if there was not enough support to overturn it legally.

Hitler made everything he did "legal", after all. The law is not the be all end all of right and wrong.

[Redleg]

Several of the writers knew at the time that slavery was immoral but penned the Constitution anyway to appease the status quo of southern states. If all 50 states ratify a law saying Muslims can be shot on sight or gay people can be rounded up and put in camps I'd oppose it. And I'd oppose such a law even if there was not enough support to overturn it legally.

Appling your ethics on the issue is fine, however your own arguement is self-defeating here. The constitution itself is a working document which allows for the time to change the document. Yes there were slave holders that encouraged the document to initially leave out the part that slaverly was wrong. We fought a major war over that issue and corrected the document to reflect the fact that it was wrong. Attempting to claim an ethical stance about killing muslims or shoting gay people, both which violate not only the main body of the document but also several amendments is again a false arguement. Do you have such little understanding of the document itself that you believe that its a bad document for setting up the standards of the government?

Hitler made everything he did "legal", after all. The law is not the be all end all of right and wrong.

The law is how societies allow themselves to be governed. So again where did I say the law is the be all end all of anything.

Your again reaching for a position that I did not take

the forms of democratic governments are about comprising to come up with the best possible solution that everyone can accept.

[Koga No Goshi]

the forms of democratic governments are about comprising to come up with the best possible solution that everyone can accept.

Agreed. But it's not a perfect system and should never be trusted to be perfect, to work perfectly, or to be the source of our sense of right and wrong.

[Redleg]

Agreed. But it's not a perfect system and should never be trusted to be perfect, to work perfectly, or to be the source of our sense of right and wrong.

Hince the document has the ability to be adjusted by the amendment process.

Right and wrong is an ethical issue and a moral issue based upon the laws that the government passes. The constitution provides the framework for which the government is to function. Since I dont claim that the document is perfect only that its the foundation of our basic ability to govern our nation and which our laws are formulated from.

In fact the constitution protects your right to protest on the actions of the government that you fill is a violation of doing something right.

Which allows the constitutional process work