Henry Vilas wrote:Do you have the same objections to the common Defence?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean to ask, but I'll give a rough description of what "common Defence" means to this layperson Constitution reader. Common Defence includes the day-to-day and wartime material and labor costs of maintaining the military, as directed by the President and funded/appropriated by the Congress. I would consider this type of Defence to include what we would commonly refer to as national security - border security, naval security, and riotous/rebellious internal security as well as addressing normal police/crime issues (which are better handled at the local level). All of these actions are taken in the name of preserving the integrity and general Welfare of the Union itself (as a geographic and political entity), not of the individual citizens or persons therein. Does this answer your question?
If you're trying to get me to play Talking Points, then I'm not really interested. Do I support many of the aggressive, so-called 'defense' measures our nation has taken in the past two decades? No. Do I support torture or suspension of due process for accused 'enemy combatants'? No.