Tell us more about the Barbary pirates. I'm getting tired of neocons using that as a justification for our current prolonged war with [terror] Islamic extremist.
For $1.20/ea we can mail a "For Liberty Re-cut" DVD and a Super Brochure to 1 Republican Supervoter, accompanied by a letter from New York Times' best-selling author Thomas E. Woods.
@TomWoodsTV While I agree with your points, my question involves another issue: Nuclear War. Suppose enemy missiles are on their way to our country right now from another nation. Does the president have the right to respond with nuclear weapons without Congressional approval? Does he have to wait for a formal declaration of war before he can authorize a nuclear response?
> Does the president have the right to respond with nuclear weapons...
No. If you want him to have this right then make an amendment and give it to him.
The idea is, if there is time to consult the legislature then it is necessary to do so. If you think a nuke response can't be done in the time required to summon Congress from the whorehouses then you should propose an amendment. Call it the "Congress is slow" amendment.
I think one of the points that needs to be brought up in this debate is that people all around the world are being killed by their leaders/governments/dictators, and the UN/US/Coalition forces are extremely choosey about which ones they wade into. Take China's disgusting treatment of Tibet for example. A complete non issue in reality in the political landscape. Same for most countries out there.
It doesn't matter WHAT the U.N. charter says! The President must obey the Constitution, regardless of what the U.N. says. The U.N. is not a superior political body to the Constitution. The U.N. has no existence in the makeup of American government.
Part of the purpose of this Libyan Adventure is to establish the precedent of U.N. authority above Congress, and the policy of non-American bodies commanding U.S. forces.
Mr. Woods, in your article on war powers you portray the British king as an executive with all the powers to take the Empire to war. Is this not based on a common misconception( held by Americans then and now) that the King was the principle actor in curtailing their liberties and waging war against them? The Parliament held the purse strings which effectively made it the arbiter of taxation and war. It was not the monarchy of Henry V. The beef was more with Westminster than with George III.
hey Tom would you like to participate on our debates ? if yes visit espuelas.com We are open minded and would love to hear your opinions on a few other issues. Thank you.
The question from Hardball was reqarding bombing IRAN.
Biden's answer was (it was impeachable to attack IRAN) Nobody in that Biden hardball video mentioned LIBYA. So, does it's impeachable to bomb LIBYA as well?
The US is not at war, the US is lending a neutralizing technique to degrade Gaddafi's air capabilities so the UN mandate can be imposed against Libyan dictator determined to massacre unarmed civilians. Had he succeeded, perhaps half of the Benghazi's residents (700,000) would have crossed into Egypt, a country already shaky because of the recent uprising, so US lent a technology no one has, precise. So, once the skies of Libya are safe, the UN will take over the mandate of gaurding a no fly zone
@Shaft2009 You are implying that the U.N. mandate is legitimate. This is an act of war, thats right and act of war. Its funny when people can be so propagandized that they have to re-invent words. Scenario: U.S. sends CIA agents to disrupt public life by causing riots. Internet full aflame with the bogus call for 'democracy', riots and shooting towards the government. This leads to retaliation by the govt. People die, call in the UN (the USA) and then bomb the shit out of the 'government'
I do support the constitution! but Congress? They are a corrupt organization in America that is filled w/ people who seem to have never looked at a constitution, and fail to uphold their oath into power! 29 have been accused of spousal abuse, 7 have been arrested for fraud, 19 have been accused of writing bad checks, 117 have bankrupted at least 2 businesses, 3 have been arrested for assault, etc. So its funny you speak the word unconstitutional involving the most unconstitutional group around!
Loved your refutation of Mark Levin. I like a lot of what he says in regards to economic policy, but the guy is totally wrong on war making powers and the Constitution.
How much separation d'you think exists between 'economic policy' and 'war powers'?? As cliched as this is going to sound, "War is the health of the State" Anyone who claims to advocate "war powers" to a central authority-understands neither liberty nor economics. Food for thought: 2 of our biggest exports to the world are debt and arms. We spend more on arms than the world combined. We supposedly have more incarcerated folks than "Communist China".
@drkshad0 True, I don't disagree. "Big government" gives them the ability to divert funding from the welfare state to the warfare state. I honestly haven't read Levin's book, I just assumed he would be in favor of repealing the income tax since he seems to be so pro-Constitution. And technically, you could still do deficit spending even with a more limited government to foster war. The root issue in all of this really is the Federal Reserve - that allows for the massive spending binges.
Isn't that the same logic as saying, since the legislature has passed lots of laws throughout history discriminating against minorities, it must be Constitutional to discriminate against minorities?
want to know the REAL rules President Obama needs to adhere to READ the Congressional War Powers Resolution of 1973. look it up. the President, who is a graduate of Harvard Law School & a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years knows the rules & is adhering to them. this is just more wing-nut tea bagger rhetoric that plays to everyone too lazy or stupid to do some reading.
@catayl it states " The President in every possible instance shall CONSULT with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."
@catayl exactly my point. he did not ask for approval but he actually did consult congress along with the speakers of the senate & house the following Monday when they all came back into session. they were all in their home districts when NATO & UN gave it the go on that Friday evening. i did not agree with this move but it was completely within the law & he at least kept all but CIA, which he has little say over thanks to W's end of term presidential orders (300+ in last 2 wks), off the ground.
@catayl Translation: I am too lazy to read the article referred to in the video, and I am too much of a blind Obama supporter to realize I was scammed into voting for yet another member of the bipartisan War Party.
@tewj57 the tea baggers are anti war, the wingnuts who gave us Pakistan, Afghanistan & Iraq, like Cheney and McCain are for the war. they wanted him to put combat troops on the ground a week before the no fly zone was a go. this is all part of the Bush- Saudi agenda to redecorate the middle east with new, more compliant puppets. if you want to know what us Constitutionalists are about read the (hard line) Libertarian Declaration of Independence, 1980 & (more moderate) Progressive budget plan.
where are all the dem anti war protestors that were out in full force on bush, once Obama got in office and escalated more wars, they all freaking disappear? That just shows that they werent really anti war or else they would be out here in full force against Obama. What a joke
@catayl i am a progressive, slightly on the libertarian side. i remind people that the republican & democratic parties were the democratic republican party for many years before splitting in 2. they have different paths to the same agenda. i do not agree with the war but the fact is he did it within the law as it is. don't like it? change the laws. i'm active in protesting, write letters, phone calls, etc on many issues. are you?
Does anyone have a link to the estimates of civilian deaths committed by Qaddafi? I can't seem to find a good source. Is it 2000? It is tragic, however U.S. involvement is shortsighted and could very likely undermine the efforts of the people of Libya. It is a civil war and any intervention should be carried out by powers in that region, not the U.S. It is not our fight.
@nativemrv19722 ah the classic "he started it" argument. just because the other party did it, doesn't make it OK. they are both wrong! And it's not true that "nobody" said a word about the constitution. they were just ignored, like now.
@direweaseltjw I don't know if he started but i do know he did it. Thought if your in the U.N. like we are you have a responsiblity. As long you don't go it alone like Bush did in Iraq.
@nativemrv19722 Our constitution is the supreme law of the land - not the UN charter or NATO's charter or any other document. Our leaders are elected to represent US first and foremost, not the UN. The UN charter itself says that it is subordinate to the rules of each member nation's government. Trying to say we can go to war without congressional approval, just because the UN wants us to, is completely wrong.
@nativemrv19722 um, dropping bombs on another sovereign nation is an act of war, whether ground troops are used or not. Just ask the people of Pearl Harbor.
And just because other president's have abused the law and the constitution, doesn't make it ok or mean I won't continue to point it out every time. Again, the "he started it" argument doesn't cut it.
@direweaseltjw Yeah, two wrongs don't make right. And i still i say we been in the U.N. for years. If people did'nt like it then they should have protest before many times before. But no one made a big issue out of it then. Is what i am saying. Every one worried about the budget but it has always been there in one form are another.
@nativemrv19722 I've been against our involvement in the UN for a long time, and I'm not alone. Look at the Libertarian Party's platform. So people HAVE been making an issue out of it for years, it's just that nobody is listening and it never gets any press.
@direweaseltjw It just the U.S.A. wants to be involved in foreign bussiness good are bad since World War 2. In world war 2 all the powers had to unit. For a bigger enemy, been this way every since.?! Doesn't look like they want to pull out. I some times wish we would, but they will not do it. Maybe a Indpendented party? would do it, but not enough support.
I'm looking for the exact chapter & article of the UN charter that says member states, when enacting a UN resolution, must still abide by the constitutional or other processes of their respective countries. Can't find it. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks for the point about the UN Charter stating that member states, when enacting a UN resolution, must still abide by the constitutional or other processes of their respective countries. I was not aware of that!
Tom, Thank you. My admiration meter just jumped a few more points - I think it's pegged at 110%. We need America awake and aware, and Lew, Ron, The Judge,yourself and so many others have made such a difference. We need to get back to our roots. What is America if it isn't a nation of laws?
I am definitely going to pick up your book now. Chin up, and don't ever let them get you down, because we are WINNING!
Excellent video, Mr. Woods! You are cogent and eloquent as always. I just got "Rollback" in the mail yesterday, by the way. I blazed through it and have just now finished with it. An excellent book and very well written indeed! It is as Jeff Tucker said: each chapter is more radical than the last. I had no idea that the official Medicare shortfall, frightening though it is, already assumes draconian and, let's face it, politically impossible, cuts to the program! Keep up the superlative work!
"Winning the argument" doesn't really mean much. The US military follows the President's orders, whether they're constitutional or not. The Congress isn't going to do anything about it. The Supremt Court isn't going to do anything about it. The media isn't going to inform the people that the President's orders are illegal. The people aren't going to replace their congressional representatives over their inaction. Like all laws, the Constitution is only as good as its enforcement.
@feenix566 The members of the military do not take an oath to obey the president, they take an oath to defend the constitution. What is needed is to awaken the American people to the fact that the constitution is NOT being followed, and in fact is being blatantly and illegally violated at every turn. Once a critical mass of people become aware of that, things could change rather rapidly, likely to the great consternation of those who have been violating their oaths thus far.
Liberty is alive and well on American campuses today, Keep the good fight going Woods, you've been a great help in breaking the "Orwellian" ice for my friends lol.
@LibertySteve That's not quite the meaning, which is that once he concedes he has no constitutional argument, well, that was your point to begin with, wasn't it?
@Prsnhoot How can you derive that I am a simpleton, when I didn't say that? Why can't you derive that people rather toss out the constitution than go against their favorite idol? Is it because it's easier for you to be randomly insulting to anyone who doesn't 100% worship your favorite idol than it is for you to actually think on your own?
It's easy to calculate your buffoonery. You say the word "people" the same way big government creeps talk about this abstract idea called social justice which is laughable. There are legislators like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich who carry pocket size constitutions on them everywhere they go because they uphold their oath to uphold the constitution. Worship who? I'm confused, more feebleness I see, so the idol that I worship the constitution? I'm still confused jackass.
Steve if the Constitution is the law of the land then it does get any more base than that. Its like taking about Christianity and some says that Jesus said space monkeys are holy and to eat them. If you can't find it and the book is the WORD or law then he can't claim its in your Bible. Doesnt matter what side of the bible camp he is on whether he is a literalist or not. Also if you dont want to use the Constitution you have John Stuart Mills, Ben Franklin, the Renaissance,etc
Thank you very much for what you do. If it wasn't for youtube I would have never met you, Peter Schiff, Jeffrey Tucker, Thomas DiLorenzo, et al. Finally, I can pursue truth, knowledge, and understanding through the mountains of knowledge you and the Mises Institute give so freely. Thank you.
5 nazis watched this video!
MrGiggity890 1 month ago
Tell us more about the Barbary pirates. I'm getting tired of neocons using that as a justification for our current prolonged war with [terror] Islamic extremist.
joshuamiller79 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This will win us Iowa!!!
Go to SUPERVOTERBOMB [dot] com
For $1.20/ea we can mail a "For Liberty Re-cut" DVD and a Super Brochure to 1 Republican Supervoter, accompanied by a letter from New York Times' best-selling author Thomas E. Woods.
SchleckBros 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TomWoodsTV
This has been flagged as spam show
Vote Ron Paul 2012
lostcauze88 4 months ago
Tom, do you plan to do a video on the Awlaki assassination?
MooseOfReason 5 months ago in playlist More videos from TomWoodsTV
smartest man in the world.i say as robert wenzel. this guy has to get into politics
rolgorevene 5 months ago
tom, what you doing in your parents basement?
alistairproductions 8 months ago
@TomWoodsTV While I agree with your points, my question involves another issue: Nuclear War. Suppose enemy missiles are on their way to our country right now from another nation. Does the president have the right to respond with nuclear weapons without Congressional approval? Does he have to wait for a formal declaration of war before he can authorize a nuclear response?
TheWyldeGoose 10 months ago
@TheWyldeGoose
> Does the president have the right to respond with nuclear weapons...
No. If you want him to have this right then make an amendment and give it to him.
The idea is, if there is time to consult the legislature then it is necessary to do so. If you think a nuke response can't be done in the time required to summon Congress from the whorehouses then you should propose an amendment. Call it the "Congress is slow" amendment.
For my part, I would vote against it.
sdkee 9 months ago
I think one of the points that needs to be brought up in this debate is that people all around the world are being killed by their leaders/governments/dictators, and the UN/US/Coalition forces are extremely choosey about which ones they wade into. Take China's disgusting treatment of Tibet for example. A complete non issue in reality in the political landscape. Same for most countries out there.
petekaz1977 10 months ago
It doesn't matter WHAT the U.N. charter says! The President must obey the Constitution, regardless of what the U.N. says. The U.N. is not a superior political body to the Constitution. The U.N. has no existence in the makeup of American government.
Part of the purpose of this Libyan Adventure is to establish the precedent of U.N. authority above Congress, and the policy of non-American bodies commanding U.S. forces.
Hiraghm 11 months ago
Mr. Woods, in your article on war powers you portray the British king as an executive with all the powers to take the Empire to war. Is this not based on a common misconception( held by Americans then and now) that the King was the principle actor in curtailing their liberties and waging war against them? The Parliament held the purse strings which effectively made it the arbiter of taxation and war. It was not the monarchy of Henry V. The beef was more with Westminster than with George III.
celticultural 11 months ago
hey Tom would you like to participate on our debates ? if yes visit espuelas.com We are open minded and would love to hear your opinions on a few other issues. Thank you.
ibanocampo 11 months ago
Syria is next.
crystalmethod1000 11 months ago
The question from Hardball was reqarding bombing IRAN.
Biden's answer was (it was impeachable to attack IRAN) Nobody in that Biden hardball video mentioned LIBYA. So, does it's impeachable to bomb LIBYA as well?
betty85260 11 months ago
The US is not at war, the US is lending a neutralizing technique to degrade Gaddafi's air capabilities so the UN mandate can be imposed against Libyan dictator determined to massacre unarmed civilians. Had he succeeded, perhaps half of the Benghazi's residents (700,000) would have crossed into Egypt, a country already shaky because of the recent uprising, so US lent a technology no one has, precise. So, once the skies of Libya are safe, the UN will take over the mandate of gaurding a no fly zone
Shaft2009 11 months ago
@Shaft2009 Completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, but thank you.
tewj57 11 months ago
@Shaft2009 You are implying that the U.N. mandate is legitimate. This is an act of war, thats right and act of war. Its funny when people can be so propagandized that they have to re-invent words. Scenario: U.S. sends CIA agents to disrupt public life by causing riots. Internet full aflame with the bogus call for 'democracy', riots and shooting towards the government. This leads to retaliation by the govt. People die, call in the UN (the USA) and then bomb the shit out of the 'government'
rapidfireXring 11 months ago
Thank you very much, more vids plz :)
TylersCool45 11 months ago
Come on Tom. War is good for the dollar, and we all know the president is supposed to stimulate the economy.
n66178 11 months ago
Distilled and concentrated the core issues without losing the essential meaning.
Nice, quick video Dr. Woods!
Thank you!
PS: I couldn't tell if you were in your parent's basement from the video! ;-)
drkshad0 11 months ago
Tom can you explain this to Mark Levin,
walthomas 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@walthomas Nevermind I just read it on your web page great info. Thanks Tom
walthomas 11 months ago
I do support the constitution! but Congress? They are a corrupt organization in America that is filled w/ people who seem to have never looked at a constitution, and fail to uphold their oath into power! 29 have been accused of spousal abuse, 7 have been arrested for fraud, 19 have been accused of writing bad checks, 117 have bankrupted at least 2 businesses, 3 have been arrested for assault, etc. So its funny you speak the word unconstitutional involving the most unconstitutional group around!
ProToolPat 11 months ago 2
I'm glad you listened to Gary North. Great stuff.
dskillz1 11 months ago
Loved your refutation of Mark Levin. I like a lot of what he says in regards to economic policy, but the guy is totally wrong on war making powers and the Constitution.
WreakingHavoc1 11 months ago
@WreakingHavoc1
How much separation d'you think exists between 'economic policy' and 'war powers'?? As cliched as this is going to sound, "War is the health of the State" Anyone who claims to advocate "war powers" to a central authority-understands neither liberty nor economics. Food for thought: 2 of our biggest exports to the world are debt and arms. We spend more on arms than the world combined. We supposedly have more incarcerated folks than "Communist China".
Still the 'Land of the Free'??
drkshad0 11 months ago
@drkshad0 True, I don't disagree. "Big government" gives them the ability to divert funding from the welfare state to the warfare state. I honestly haven't read Levin's book, I just assumed he would be in favor of repealing the income tax since he seems to be so pro-Constitution. And technically, you could still do deficit spending even with a more limited government to foster war. The root issue in all of this really is the Federal Reserve - that allows for the massive spending binges.
WreakingHavoc1 11 months ago
Isn't that the same logic as saying, since the legislature has passed lots of laws throughout history discriminating against minorities, it must be Constitutional to discriminate against minorities?
JohnJ2427 11 months ago 2
want to know the REAL rules President Obama needs to adhere to READ the Congressional War Powers Resolution of 1973. look it up. the President, who is a graduate of Harvard Law School & a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years knows the rules & is adhering to them. this is just more wing-nut tea bagger rhetoric that plays to everyone too lazy or stupid to do some reading.
catayl 11 months ago
@catayl it states " The President in every possible instance shall CONSULT with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."
catayl 11 months ago
@catayl exactly my point. he did not ask for approval but he actually did consult congress along with the speakers of the senate & house the following Monday when they all came back into session. they were all in their home districts when NATO & UN gave it the go on that Friday evening. i did not agree with this move but it was completely within the law & he at least kept all but CIA, which he has little say over thanks to W's end of term presidential orders (300+ in last 2 wks), off the ground.
catayl 10 months ago
@catayl Translation: I am too lazy to read the article referred to in the video, and I am too much of a blind Obama supporter to realize I was scammed into voting for yet another member of the bipartisan War Party.
tewj57 11 months ago 6
@catayl Funny that the "wing-nuts" are antiwar, and the alleged progressives are for dropping bombs. You crack me up.
tewj57 11 months ago 5
@tewj57 the tea baggers are anti war, the wingnuts who gave us Pakistan, Afghanistan & Iraq, like Cheney and McCain are for the war. they wanted him to put combat troops on the ground a week before the no fly zone was a go. this is all part of the Bush- Saudi agenda to redecorate the middle east with new, more compliant puppets. if you want to know what us Constitutionalists are about read the (hard line) Libertarian Declaration of Independence, 1980 & (more moderate) Progressive budget plan.
catayl 10 months ago
@catayl
where are all the dem anti war protestors that were out in full force on bush, once Obama got in office and escalated more wars, they all freaking disappear? That just shows that they werent really anti war or else they would be out here in full force against Obama. What a joke
ForTehNguyen 11 months ago
@ForTehNguyen Exactly they're a bunch of hypocrites. So many people are brainwashed by the system and believe in the false left-right paradigm.
WreakingHavoc1 11 months ago
@catayl i am a progressive, slightly on the libertarian side. i remind people that the republican & democratic parties were the democratic republican party for many years before splitting in 2. they have different paths to the same agenda. i do not agree with the war but the fact is he did it within the law as it is. don't like it? change the laws. i'm active in protesting, write letters, phone calls, etc on many issues. are you?
catayl 10 months ago
Does anyone have a link to the estimates of civilian deaths committed by Qaddafi? I can't seem to find a good source. Is it 2000? It is tragic, however U.S. involvement is shortsighted and could very likely undermine the efforts of the people of Libya. It is a civil war and any intervention should be carried out by powers in that region, not the U.S. It is not our fight.
b2bdown 11 months ago
@TomWoodsTV - Neo Confederate!!!
judd73 11 months ago
When you started speaking of Adams and Jefferson most of the youtube crowd became confused. They had no idea what you were talking about. lol
stevegreen65 11 months ago
I linked to your video, Tom. So people watching the viral Biden/Impeach Obama video can see what you think...
radiofriendly 11 months ago
I think Reagan Bombed Libya all by himself overnight 1986? And nobody said a word about the constitution.
nativemrv19722 11 months ago
@nativemrv19722 ah the classic "he started it" argument. just because the other party did it, doesn't make it OK. they are both wrong!
direweaseltjw 11 months ago
@nativemrv19722 ah the classic "he started it" argument. just because the other party did it, doesn't make it OK. they are both wrong! And it's not true that "nobody" said a word about the constitution. they were just ignored, like now.
direweaseltjw 11 months ago 2
@direweaseltjw I don't know if he started but i do know he did it. Thought if your in the U.N. like we are you have a responsiblity. As long you don't go it alone like Bush did in Iraq.
nativemrv19722 11 months ago
@nativemrv19722 Our constitution is the supreme law of the land - not the UN charter or NATO's charter or any other document. Our leaders are elected to represent US first and foremost, not the UN. The UN charter itself says that it is subordinate to the rules of each member nation's government. Trying to say we can go to war without congressional approval, just because the UN wants us to, is completely wrong.
direweaseltjw 11 months ago
@direweaseltjw We are not going to war with Libya. We don't have any ground troops. And this isn't the first time this every happen.
nativemrv19722 11 months ago
@nativemrv19722 um, dropping bombs on another sovereign nation is an act of war, whether ground troops are used or not. Just ask the people of Pearl Harbor.
And just because other president's have abused the law and the constitution, doesn't make it ok or mean I won't continue to point it out every time. Again, the "he started it" argument doesn't cut it.
direweaseltjw 11 months ago
@direweaseltjw Yeah, two wrongs don't make right. And i still i say we been in the U.N. for years. If people did'nt like it then they should have protest before many times before. But no one made a big issue out of it then. Is what i am saying. Every one worried about the budget but it has always been there in one form are another.
nativemrv19722 11 months ago
@nativemrv19722 I've been against our involvement in the UN for a long time, and I'm not alone. Look at the Libertarian Party's platform. So people HAVE been making an issue out of it for years, it's just that nobody is listening and it never gets any press.
direweaseltjw 11 months ago
@direweaseltjw It just the U.S.A. wants to be involved in foreign bussiness good are bad since World War 2. In world war 2 all the powers had to unit. For a bigger enemy, been this way every since.?! Doesn't look like they want to pull out. I some times wish we would, but they will not do it. Maybe a Indpendented party? would do it, but not enough support.
nativemrv19722 11 months ago
Interview with the zombies
packer041 11 months ago
Tom kicks some serious booty every time he makes the point
TheEbonicslover 11 months ago 2
END THE FED AND THESE UNDECLARED WARS WILL FOLLOW....BRING THE TROOPS HOME....RON PAUL FOP PRESIDENT 2012
petiemac24 11 months ago
Certainly my favorite living historian
Spalg 11 months ago
Your shirt is killing the camera. Lol, moire.
Omnis2 11 months ago
Thank you so much for helping redress the shockingly poor job of teaching history by the federally-directed public school system.
leafwatch 11 months ago 2
Thanks, Tom, glad you decided to get the message out rather than be concerned over quality of the audio...you rock, keep these coming please!
pgadeb 11 months ago 2
Tom your shirt is making me feel awfully spacey.
squash9991 11 months ago
Thanks Tom, hope to see lots more of these
mkauai2 11 months ago
It's UN Charter, Cahper 7, Article 43, Section 3, correct?
lllarry 11 months ago
I'm looking for the exact chapter & article of the UN charter that says member states, when enacting a UN resolution, must still abide by the constitutional or other processes of their respective countries. Can't find it. Any help would be appreciated.
thanks
lllarry 11 months ago
Nice work Tom! This video needs to go viral.
mjhonsun 11 months ago
this guy is Sec. of State material.. and, include Bruce Fein for a Cabinet Position..
Dewdaahman 11 months ago
What are the consequences then? Is there any remedy that could be sought by the people (forget Congress) in court?
So the American people are supposed to pay for this new war while the President violates the Constitution - hmmmmm
itsthecurrencystupid 11 months ago
Thanks for the point about the UN Charter stating that member states, when enacting a UN resolution, must still abide by the constitutional or other processes of their respective countries. I was not aware of that!
carolm62 11 months ago
Tom, Thank you. My admiration meter just jumped a few more points - I think it's pegged at 110%. We need America awake and aware, and Lew, Ron, The Judge,yourself and so many others have made such a difference. We need to get back to our roots. What is America if it isn't a nation of laws?
I am definitely going to pick up your book now. Chin up, and don't ever let them get you down, because we are WINNING!
AntiFed1791 11 months ago
Excellent video, Mr. Woods! You are cogent and eloquent as always. I just got "Rollback" in the mail yesterday, by the way. I blazed through it and have just now finished with it. An excellent book and very well written indeed! It is as Jeff Tucker said: each chapter is more radical than the last. I had no idea that the official Medicare shortfall, frightening though it is, already assumes draconian and, let's face it, politically impossible, cuts to the program! Keep up the superlative work!
IvanTheHeathen 11 months ago
Tom! Proliferate!!!
Leofus1986 11 months ago
Excellent and lucid explanation. I'll check your website, and pass it along.
Beelzebubbbbles 11 months ago
"Winning the argument" doesn't really mean much. The US military follows the President's orders, whether they're constitutional or not. The Congress isn't going to do anything about it. The Supremt Court isn't going to do anything about it. The media isn't going to inform the people that the President's orders are illegal. The people aren't going to replace their congressional representatives over their inaction. Like all laws, the Constitution is only as good as its enforcement.
feenix566 11 months ago
@feenix566 The members of the military do not take an oath to obey the president, they take an oath to defend the constitution. What is needed is to awaken the American people to the fact that the constitution is NOT being followed, and in fact is being blatantly and illegally violated at every turn. Once a critical mass of people become aware of that, things could change rather rapidly, likely to the great consternation of those who have been violating their oaths thus far.
Panpiper 11 months ago 3
Liberty is alive and well on American campuses today, Keep the good fight going Woods, you've been a great help in breaking the "Orwellian" ice for my friends lol.
Take care and God Bless
iHappyTimeTech 11 months ago
Thank you Mr. Woods for the video.
darkwing1a 11 months ago
I don't like the, "You win when you convince your 'opponent' to throw away the constitution" part.
LibertySteve 11 months ago
@LibertySteve That's not quite the meaning, which is that once he concedes he has no constitutional argument, well, that was your point to begin with, wasn't it?
TomWoodsTV 11 months ago 20
@LibertySteve
When did he ever say that? You're obviously a simpleton.
Prsnhoot 11 months ago
@Prsnhoot How can you derive that I am a simpleton, when I didn't say that? Why can't you derive that people rather toss out the constitution than go against their favorite idol? Is it because it's easier for you to be randomly insulting to anyone who doesn't 100% worship your favorite idol than it is for you to actually think on your own?
LibertySteve 11 months ago
@LibertySteve
It's easy to calculate your buffoonery. You say the word "people" the same way big government creeps talk about this abstract idea called social justice which is laughable. There are legislators like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich who carry pocket size constitutions on them everywhere they go because they uphold their oath to uphold the constitution. Worship who? I'm confused, more feebleness I see, so the idol that I worship the constitution? I'm still confused jackass.
Prsnhoot 11 months ago
@LibertySteve
Steve if the Constitution is the law of the land then it does get any more base than that. Its like taking about Christianity and some says that Jesus said space monkeys are holy and to eat them. If you can't find it and the book is the WORD or law then he can't claim its in your Bible. Doesnt matter what side of the bible camp he is on whether he is a literalist or not. Also if you dont want to use the Constitution you have John Stuart Mills, Ben Franklin, the Renaissance,etc
Ryukikon 9 months ago
@ThomasAchord The American Presidency: Critical Episodes in Its Growth
Both parts I and II are great.
It's part of the series called "The Truth About American History: An Austro-Jeffersonian Perspective"
TheLegalImmigrant05 11 months ago
Very informative!
OrganicTory 11 months ago 2
Tom has a great audio lecture on presidential war powers available on iTunes University.
TheLegalImmigrant05 11 months ago
MORE MORE MORE VIDEOS!!!!
bajoverga 11 months ago 40
@bajoverga YES PLEASE! Keep arming us with strong arguments to combat the mainstream big government neocons like this one does!
hjaparicio 11 months ago
I received a shared email today that read....
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq ...
Why don't we just give them ours? It was drawn up by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for centuries and we're not using it any-more.
mala265 11 months ago
Kinetic military action is something you might hear in a commercial for an action figure.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
Thank you very much for what you do. If it wasn't for youtube I would have never met you, Peter Schiff, Jeffrey Tucker, Thomas DiLorenzo, et al. Finally, I can pursue truth, knowledge, and understanding through the mountains of knowledge you and the Mises Institute give so freely. Thank you.
djzager 11 months ago 35
awesome mises statue in the background XD
DaveC86 11 months ago
fap
Apptendo 11 months ago
Audio quality is fine.
'Kinetic military action' is the Orwellian synonym for this war.
Nice job, Dr. Woods. Run for president, you would OWN the neo-cons in debate.
Hackiesacker007 11 months ago