Correct, Hiss couldn't be charged with espionage because of the statute of limitations--he was doing his spying while working for FDR, in the State Department during his presidency. He played an important role in the UN too.
1. Apparently he was the 1st Secretary General of the UN.
2. So he spied while working for FDR, then quit?
3. Since he was accused of the crime, he was obviously guilty.
4.
Chui Stated that
ALL persons involved with the founding of the UN were convicted of spying. So far, nobody has mentioned a single one.
Giving aid and comfort to our enemies is treason, so, regardless of what you may think, it was right to search out communists who had given aid to our enemies.
1. Then why didn't they charge Hiss with treason for being a Communist & spy? There is not statute of limitations on treason as there is for espionage. They went to all the trouble to investigate the supposed espionage and get the perjury conviction... then quit?
2. Even IF the UN is chock-full of Communists (and allegation yet to be proven) there is nothing in the Constitution against making treaties with those who are otherwise your enemies.
3. He wasn't searching out communists who have given aid to our enemies, he was searching out supposed Communists period. He didn't ask "Are you a spy" or "are you aiding the enemies of the US", he asked "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party". Are you a member of a particular political party... period. Members of this party were considered enemies of the United States by default and without any actual proof of wrongdoing my the individual. What if he had asked if they were Jewish?
4. Even if the US Senate has Communists stacked like cord wood, the citizens of the US elected them IAW the Constitution. We get the government we elect. That's the whole idea.
The president is the executive, he executes the laws of Congress. Executes. Carries them out.
Congress has passed several laws giving the President the power to deploy troops just as was being done for Macedonia. So, he was deploying the troops IAW the law passed by Congress.
Since only Congress is given the power to declare war, the president may not.
Agreed.
He can only order troops to wherever congress has declared war on.
I don't see that in writing anywhere. In any case, Jefferson sent the new US Navy against the Barbary Pirates in 1801 without a declaration of war by Congress. The Second Barbary War was fought in 1815, authorized by Congress but again without a formal declaration of war. Since these actions were taken while the framers of the Constitution were still alive, and indeed with many still in office, I suspect that we can do away with the idea that military force can only be utilized after a formal declaration of war by Congress.
The UN may be a treaty, but, it is not the kind of treaty that existed prior to it that the founders had in mind
That may be true... but if so then the Constitution needs to be amended. Absent that, we have to go with what is written in black and white. If you start arguing about what the founders envisioned or failed to foresee, or what they did or didn't intend, then you are playing the same game as the liberal Democrats: "The founding fathers didn't envision machine guns when they wrote the 2A!"; "The founding fathers didn't envision the Internet when they wrote the 4A!", etc, etc.
The notion of the president being able to start a war on his own, is contrary to the Constitution and its original intent.
1. New was being sent on a peacekeeping mission to Macedonia.
2. I fail to see any difference between current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Second Barbary War (1815) where US forces were deployed with the approval of Congress, but not a formal declaration of war.
3. Can you even declare a formal war against an organization that has no national identity, such as Al Queda?
To recap:
1. The UN may be unpleasant, it may even be the source of all evil... but membership as things stand today is not unconstitutional.
2. Participation in UN operations, or any other military operation, is neither unconstitutional or illegal.
3. Deployment of US forces without a declaration of war is clearly not unconstitutional and IS legal IAW various laws passed by Congress.
4. Still no information on all the spies involved with the formation of the UN and their convictions for such.
5. SPC New didn't do any of this research or even care about his, the constitutional issues were raised because he didn't want to go somewhere potentially dangerous or unpleasant and do his job.