Monday, August 25, 2008


I am presently watching the film Stop-Loss. I haven't finished it yet--I'm little more than 1/4 through it--so I might alter my opinion on this. Nonetheless, I'm going to shoot from the hip on this one.

The story seems to be that a distinguished soldier is about to be discharged from service, but is instead set to redeploy to Iraq due to a clause in his contract known colloquially as "stop-loss"--to stop too many able soldiers from leaving during a time of war. He protests, saying that since the president declared the war over (I presume this is a reference to Bush's infamous "mission accomplished" fiasco), the clause is invalid as it is no longer a time of war.

Since the president cannot declare war (read the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11?--it's Congress's power), he cannot end it. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says that the president has the power to make treaties "with the advise and consent of the Senate . . . provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."

Based upon what I've seen so far, I sympathize with the soldier, but his legal/constitutional argument is not valid.

The moral of this story--based upon the 39 minutes that I have thus watched--is that the government should not be trusted.

By the way, that's the moral of the story in the history of every government that has ever existed and will ever exist.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Bill of Rights