"Ron Paul is the choice of the Troops" - Washington Times

[Rizzo]

The Constitution empowers Congress alone to "declare" War.

The Constitution empowers the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

The Constitution forbides the States from engaging in war unless actually invaded or in imminent danger of invasion.

The Constitution contains no language barring the Commander in Chief from engaging in war. Why? Because there was no intent by the framers to place such restrictions on the President acting as in his role as Commander in Chief. That's why.

SemperFiUSMC,

I need Clarification. Are you saying that though the Constitution says that Congress has the right to declare war, because it doesn't say the President can't declare war that he therefore can?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You are wrong. Show proof that the founders, especially Jefferson, wanted the president to have to power to wage war whenever he/she decides too.

First, I never said the President can wage war whenever he wants to. That is twisting my words.

Second, why does what Jefferson might have thought mean anything at all? He was in France at the time the Constitution was written and was neither a framer or signer.

The framers changed the language from "make" war to "declare" war in recognition of the fact that the President may from time to time be required to act swiftly, primarily to repel specific attacks but also to act within his perogative as Commander in Chief. They chose, when given the opportunity, not limit the President's war-making power to just instances when an attack was emminent or underway. Over half of the framers were (wait for it) lawyers (*GASP*). They knew what they were opening up. They constructed the language as they did anyway.

SemperFiUSMC,

I need Clarification. Are you saying that though the Constitution says that Congress has the right to declare war, because it doesn't say the President can't declare war that he therefore can?

No, that isn't what I said at all. The framers rejected vesting the exclusive power to make war in the Congress. That is what I said. Congress was a part time operation, and it would take weeks if not months for Congress to act. This time lapse (and state refusal to cede sovereignty) is what caused the failure of the Article of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Constitutional Convention was held in recognition of the fact that the nation needed an executive branch.

Congress is the sole branch that can declare war. The President in his roles as Commander in Chief may make war absent a declaration of war by Congress. That is what I've said.

Finally swinging back and tying this thread back together, Ron Paul has adopted a stance on war-making that was rejected by the framers.

 

[dhnorris]

" Ron Paul has adopted a stance on war-making that was rejected by the framers"

As the father of two strong healthy boys it is stance which I completely support. In my day we were driving pershing II's all over europe and the USSR was doing the same, what we have now is NOT the same. We don't need opec oil at all. The western hemispere has enough oil for all of our needs I say let China deal with the sandbox.

 

[Cerberus]

Finally swinging back and tying this thread back together, Ron Paul has adopted a stance on war-making that was rejected by the framers.

Please provice primary documentation to support this statement. I don't think you can, but you will dance around the question.

 

[Paul]

First, I never said the President can wage war whenever he wants to. That is twisting my words.

If the president can wage war (without being attacked first), then the president can wage war whenever he wants too.

Second, why does what Jefferson might have thought mean anything at all? He was in France at the time the Constitution was written and was neither a framer or signer.

Jefferson means a lot. Yes I know he was in France, but many of who were there were "Jeffersonian's."

The framers changed the language from "make" war to "declare" war in recognition of the fact that the President may from time to time be required to act swiftly, primarily to repel specific attacks but also to act within his perogative as Commander in Chief. They chose, when given the opportunity, not limit the President's war-making power to just instances when an attack was emminent or underway. Over half of the framers were (wait for it) lawyers (*GASP*). They knew what they were opening up. They constructed the language as they did anyway.

George Washington’s operations on his own authority against the Indians were confined to defensive measures, conscious as he was that the approval of Congress would be necessary for anything further. “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress,” he said, “therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.

Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).

No, that isn't what I said at all. The framers rejected vesting the exclusive power to make war in the Congress. That is what I said. Congress was a part time operation, and it would take weeks if not months for Congress to act. This time lapse (and state refusal to cede sovereignty) is what caused the failure of the Article of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Constitutional Convention was held in recognition of the fact that the nation needed an executive branch.

George Washington’s operations on his own authority against the Indians were confined to defensive measures, conscious as he was that the approval of Congress would be necessary for anything further. “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress,” he said, “therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.

Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).

Congress is the sole branch that can declare war. The President in his roles as Commander in Chief may make war absent a declaration of war by Congress. That is what I've said.

George Washington’s operations on his own authority against the Indians were confined to defensive measures, conscious as he was that the approval of Congress would be necessary for anything further. “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress,” he said, “therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.

Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).

Finally swinging back and tying this thread back together, Ron Paul has adopted a stance on war-making that was rejected by the framers.

I disagree by the words of George Washington and Hamilton

 

[hoosierdoc]

A poll would be a sample of LESS people than those who donate. You won't listen to campaign contributions but you will a poll?!?!?

The donations are like a poll only the votes are with dollars and costs you to vote and shows true intent and seriousness.

You don't want to listen to the 1500 soldiers who showed up? But you will listen to a poll, none of which will consist of over 1500 people.

It's frustrating dealing with Paul supporters. The run on emotion and never read what you write. My post clearly stated of the 1500, only 400 were active duty or former military personnel. So no, I don't think 400 out of 1.4 million active duty plus 20 former armed services personnel is enough to say the military is for Ron Paul. I also pointed out a minority actively doing something sounds louder than a majority doing nothing. So the $0.10 per soldier donation Paul has received is not overwhelming evidence. If you actively take a poll you were get responses from those with opinions who don't act on them other than to vote. If you passively look at donations you are merely sampling the vocal people.

I'm not saying a poll wouldn't show Paul as the favorite; I am saying that the information that's been presented thus far here and in the original story is insufficient to draw the conclusion the headline used.

 

[rambone]

Ask SemperFiUSMC how he feels about the Roman Empire and you will start to see why he is such a strong advocate of having an Imperial Presidency.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

" Ron Paul has adopted a stance on war-making that was rejected by the framers"

As the father of two strong healthy boys it is stance which I completely support. In my day we were driving pershing II's all over europe and the USSR was doing the same, what we have now is NOT the same. We don't need opec oil at all. The western hemispere has enough oil for all of our needs I say let China deal with the sandbox.

That's fine that you agree with him. I guess we all have thresholds between when the Constitution is the law of the land and an inconvenient, archaic and quaint document, no so much a governing document than more of a guideline. To make claim that his stance supports the constitutional powers of the President is to ignore the Constitution and its framers.

Please provice primary documentation to support this statement. I don't think you can, but you will dance around the question.

I'll try one more time then I'm done. I obviously don't speak Paulbot.

From his campaign website:

National Defense*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Here are his national defense planks. I'll even give a personal opinion on each and every one.

As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.

No disagreement.

In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.

Sort of. He authored a Bill proposing Letter of Marque and Reprisal to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He really wanted to use pirates to find bin Laden in the 21st century? Seriously?

Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.

This is an issue of policy not a matter of law, and it's not even correct. Many of the bases in these 135 countries are forward bases which allow rapid deployment in the case that our military must respond. While complaining about the cost makes for a great soundbite it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the effort and logistics necessary to mobilize our armed forces. The Navy and Marine Corps can mobilize and hit the beaches, but without forward bases and a long, unbroken supply train there is no way we could hold long term.

Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

No disagreement, but again this is an issue of policy not a matter of law.

Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.

No disagreement, but again this is an issue of policy not a matter of law.

Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions.

Yes and no. Congress sets policy, and the President carrys out that policy. The Executive Branch is co-equal, if not superior under the Constitution in effecting foreign policy. Paul comes from the legislature. Is it any wonder he despises Executive power?

Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.

A crock of . This is Obama's worldview as well, and offensive. It is the Blame America First attitude that permeates our elite and filters down to the masses.

That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:
* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

Great. It's about time.

* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

OK, so I like part of the first part of the first sentence - Avoid long and expensive wars. If we go to war we need to get in, get the job done, and get out. No nation building, no policing, nothing other than a "we kicked your ass really good, but next time we'll do it more" single finger salute on the way out the door.

Two things strike me with this statement. Land wars. This implies that you can win a war without boots on the ground, a strategy that has been proven false. The other is constitutional means. Again we're back to pirates, which is the legislation he proposed. That's just flat goofy, and an abdication of the responsibility of the Commander in Chief. He is doing nothing more that parroting the leftist stance that bin Laden was a simple criminal. He was not. This is a dangerous position to take.

* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

This is a great pull quote, but really means nothing. While I don't like the PATRIOT Act for several reasons, I don't think any federal agencies were spying on Aunt Millie trying to get her cookie recipe. I have never heard of a single instance of the communication part of the PATRIOT Act being used to spy on Americans. I have heard (and agree with) the legitimate concern that it could be, but honestly federal agents can spy on you whether the PATRIOT Act exists or not. If you look at it from a realistic rather than academic standpoint, it's a red herring.

* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

Great. I am ALL for this. Kick ass in time for Seinfeld.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

And this is the biggie. The President is not required to wait for Congressional approval before carrying out his role as Commander in Chief for the reasons I've outlined in other posts.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

Of course. Who doesn't like that?

But if Congress declares war, or a treaty partner is attacked and Paul doesn't feel like there is a clear mission or the military lacks the tools necessary to complete the job, what will he do?

These are the kind of throw away statements that concern me about him.

* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

Absolutely. We don't do enough for our returning heroes. Having said that, this is a matter for Congress. How will Paul do this when he's not constitutionally authorized or empowered to do so?

* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

No disagreement, other than we don't have a trillion dollar military budget. This sounds like we're going to slash the military budget language to me.

* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

I could not agree more.

* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

Being that the middle class and poor don't actually pay taxes anymore, I don't know that I agree with this statement. We should cut our foreign aid, but it is so small as a ratio of our overall budget it's like saying take the cucumbers off my salad because I'm on a diet.

As President, Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected.

Nothing more than a pull quote.

There. Flame away.

 

[Paul]

SemperFiUSMC, what about George Washington and Hamilton's thought on it? They agree with Ron Paul.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

George Washington’s operations on his own authority against the Indians were confined to defensive measures, conscious as he was that the approval of Congress would be necessary for anything further. “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress,” he said, “therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.

Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).

George Washington’s operations on his own authority against the Indians were confined to defensive measures, conscious as he was that the approval of Congress would be necessary for anything further. “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress,” he said, “therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”

Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).

I disagree by the words of [STRIKE]George Washington and Hamilton[/STRIKE] Thomas E Woods Jr.

FTFY

Plagarize much?

Do you have an original thought to share on this matter or can we assume you simply parrot the pro-Paul propaganda you read on the Interwebz?

SemperFiUSMC, what about George Washington and Hamilton's thought on it? They agree with Ron Paul.

You mean Thomas E Woods Jr. thoughts? Yeah, he agrees with Ron Paul.

Every time someone proves you wrong about something, you just reshape your argument in a feeble attempt to make everyone else look dumb.

You may not agree with me, but at least I have original thoughts with independent analysis. Reposting propaganda without proper attribution is what is really feeble, don't you agree?

Still waiting for those statements from RP that I asked for earlier. Got anything yet?

See above post for my analysis on Ron Paul's national defense planks.

 

[Paul]

FTFY

Plagarize much?

Do you have an original thought to share on this matter or can we assume you simply parrot the pro-Paul propaganda you read on the Interwebz?



You mean Thomas E Woods Jr. thoughts? Yeah, he agrees with Ron Paul.

I never claimed it was my work........ and yes the Woods is probably pro Ron Paul since Woods is from the Von Mises Institute

Actually no, I read American history books. These books stimulated the use my brain and actually look at the candidates. This lead me to Ron Paul. I actually understand what the founders envisioned for the country. What we have now is nothing like it should be. The federal government is too big and too powerful. The main 3 Republican candidates like the status quo, Ron Paul does not. He believes in individual freedom and limiting the power of the federal government to what the founders envisioned.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I never claimed it was my work........ and yes the Woods is probably pro Ron Paul since Woods is from the Von Mises Institute

Actually no, I read American history books. These books stimulated the use my brain and actually look at the candidates. This lead me to Ron Paul. I actually understand what the founders envisioned for the country. What we have now is nothing like it should be. The federal government is too big and too powerful. The main 3 Republican candidates like the status quo, Ron Paul does not. He believes in individual freedom and limiting the power of the federal government to what the founders envisioned.

Plagerize - to use the ideas or words of another without crediting the source.

Now that we have that out of the way;

I don't disagree at all that the federal government is too big and powerful, nor that it is nothing like it should be. I disagree vehemenantly that the three main Republican candidates like the status quo. Are they strict constructionists? Probably not. Is Ron Paul? Nope, except that I guess he wanted to send pirates after bin Laden.

Ron Paul twists the Constitution to support his worldview, just like everyone else does. The problem with Paul supporters is that you refuse to admit or accept it. It's perfectly fine to say "I don't care what the Constitution says or how it's been interpreted for 230 years - Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution suits me just fine". That's what dhnorris did. But to claim that one man (who wants to send pirates after terrorists) has it right when everyone else has or had it wrong is loony. I don't know. Maybe that's just me.

 

[rambone]

It's perfectly fine to say "I don't care what the Constitution says or how it's been interpreted for 230 years - Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution suits me just fine".

Isn't this emphasis on 230 years of constitutional re-interpretation the very definition of having a "living constitution"? Even more laughable is when you demanded that someone cite the treaties that authorize U.S. warmaking ability.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Isn't this emphasis on 230 years of constitutional re-interpretation the very definition of having a "living constitution"? Even more laughable is when you demanded that someone cite the treaties that authorize U.S. warmaking ability.

No, what's laughable is that you either don't understand or won't recognize that stated or unstated the Constitution has been reinterpreted for 230 years and will be until the end of the Republic, whether it's called a "living" Constitution or not. Unless we can re-create the four ghostly talking heads from Superman and bring back Madison, Wilson, Sherman and Rutledge then reinterpreting the Constitution is the natural order of things. Hell they've been reintepreting it since before it was written. In the real world the best we can hope for is to slow the rate of change. But somehow in the Paul world we can bend and break the normal order of things.

We enter into treaties to provide military aid to our allies, and visa versa. I know you don't like treaties and don't like allies, so I won't explain it any further.

 

[Lex Concord]

Court Rulings Affirming the War Power of Congress
Supreme Court: It is for Congress alone to authorize either an "imperfect" (limited) war or a "perfect" (general) war. (Bas vs. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37, 1800.)

Supreme Court: "The whole powers of war, being by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this enquiry." (Chief Justice John Marshall, Talbot vs. Seeman, 5 U.S. 1, 28, 1801.)

Supreme Court: President John Adams's instructions to seize ships are in conflict with an act of Congress and therefore illegal. (Chief Justice John Marshall, Little vs. Barreme, 6 U.S. [2 Cr.] 169, 1804.)

U.S. Circuit Court: "Does he [the president] possess the power of making war? That power is exclusively vested in congress. . . ." (Justice William Paterson, United States vs. Smith, 27 Fed. Cases 1192, 1230, C.C. N.Y., 1806.)

U.S. District Court: "Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants to the Congress the power 'to declare War.' To the extent that this unambiguous direction requires construction or explanation, it is provided by the framers' comments that they felt it to be unwise to entrust the momentous power to involve the nation in a war to the President alone. . . . The Court is not prepared to read out of the Constitution the clause granting to the Congress, and to it alone, the authority 'to declare war.'" (Judge Harold H. Greene, Dellums vs. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1144 D.D.C., 1990.)

Lalalalalalalalala...I can't hear you.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Lalalalalalalalala...I can't hear you.

Naw, I just didn't feel like b**** slapping him for parroting another web site that supported his flawed position rather than doing some original research and independent analysis. But since you brought it up:

Supreme Court: It is for Congress alone to authorize either an "imperfect" (limited) war or a "perfect" (general) war. (Bas vs. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37, 1800.)

Not on point. The issue before the Court was the taking and salvage of French vessels and the value to be assessed, not whether the President had violated the Constitution and exceeded his authority.

Had Rizzo reviewed the decision rather than relying on the pull quote, he would have found that the Court found that there was in fact a state of war between the United States and France, even in the absence of a formal declaration of such by our Congress. This is what happens when you don't know what you are reading and you rely on others to spoonfeed you information.

Here's the full decision.

Bas v. Tingy - 4 U.S. 37 (1800) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Supreme Court: "The whole powers of war, being by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this enquiry." (Chief Justice John Marshall, Talbot vs. Seeman, 5 U.S. 1, 28, 1801.)

Not on point. The issue before the Court was the taking and salvage of neutral vessels operating in the service of France during a time of War, not whether the President had violated the Constitution and exceeded his authority.

Had Rizzo reviewed the decision rather than relying on the pull quote, he would have found that the Court found that there was in fact a state of war between the United States and France, even in the absence of a formal declaration of such by our Congress, and that the taking of the ship was found legal. This is what happens when you don't know what you are reading and you rely on others to spoonfeed you information.

Here's the full decision.

Talbot v. Seeman - 5 U.S. 1 (1801) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Supreme Court: President John Adams's instructions to seize ships are in conflict with an act of Congress and therefore illegal. (Chief Justice John Marshall, Little vs. Barreme, 6 U.S. [2 Cr.] 169, 1804.)

Not on point. The issue in the case was whether the President had violated an Act of Congress, not exceeded his authority under the Constitution.

Had Rizzo read his own pull quote he would have seen that the issue was over violation of an Act of Congress, not exceeding constitutional authority.

Little v. Barreme - 6 U.S. 170 (1804) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Are we seeing a pattern yet?

U.S. Circuit Court: "Does he [the president] possess the power of making war? That power is exclusively vested in congress. . . ." (Justice William Paterson, United States vs. Smith, 27 Fed. Cases 1192, 1230, C.C. N.Y., 1806.)

No record available. Circuit Court. Not precedent setting.

U.S. District Court: "Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants to the Congress the power 'to declare War.' To the extent that this unambiguous direction requires construction or explanation, it is provided by the framers' comments that they felt it to be unwise to entrust the momentous power to involve the nation in a war to the President alone. . . . The Court is not prepared to read out of the Constitution the clause granting to the Congress, and to it alone, the authority 'to declare war.'" (Judge Harold H. Greene, Dellums vs. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1144 D.D.C., 1990.)

Not prcedent setting or enforcable. Had Rizzo done any research beyond cut and paste he would have found that in fact the Bush administration won that case, so the judge's musing were just that.

So is there any real evidence or just more Interwbez gossip?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

No retorts? Where did the Interwebz lawyers go? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[MACHINEGUN]

I'm voting for Ron Paul if I can.. if not, guess it will be Rick Santorum.. yuck! Better than voting for Obama or any other Dumbocrat!

 

[steveh_131]

No retorts? Where did the Interwebz lawyers go? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I think people are getting tired of debating someone who keeps shifting his arguments and playing games.

Let's break this argument down as simply as possible:

You claimed that Ron Paul has stated that he would never use military force without a declaration of war. This was shown to be incorrect.

I haven't yet nailed down your new argument. Please clarify:

Are you saying that you believe Paul would allow us to be directly attacked and wait for an act of Congress to defend us? THat's what I gathered when you said this:

No, that isn't what I said at all. The framers rejected vesting the exclusive power to make war in the Congress. That is what I said. Congress was a part time operation, and it would take weeks if not months for Congress to act. This time lapse (and state refusal to cede sovereignty) is what caused the failure of the Article of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Constitutional Convention was held in recognition of the fact that the nation needed an executive branch.

However, it has already been made clear that Paul does not intend to await an act of Congress to defend the nation.

So the only point that can remain is that you believe Paul will not initiate hostilities when we have not been directly attacked. There are two possible problems you could have with this:

1. Policy. You love war, and Paul's policies won't initiate enough of them. I don't have the capability of the motivation to change your mind on this, but it certainly does not qualify or disqualify him as president as the constitution does not require him to initiate wars, absent a direct attack upon us.

2. Constitutionality. You think that Paul is misinterpreting the constitution, and this effectively disqualifies him as president. I have not yet seen you provide any definitive evidence, either in the founders' statements or in the constitution itself that allows the president to initiate a war. I'm not certain why the framers of the constitution would even bother explicitly giving this power to the legislative branch if they expected the president to begin and continue any war that he wanted to. I have seen plenty of them express their opinions regarding interfering in other nations' affairs, and they certainly were not in favor of it. Clearly they intended the executive branch to be able to respond to hostilities in a timely fashion. Nobody here is denying this, so please stop propping it up as your straw man to attack.

Case law and actions occurring in the status quo are completely irrelevant to Paul's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, considering that he has stated no intention of violating either of them. Choosing not to initiate hostilities absent an act of Congress is in no way a violation of the constitution.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I think people are getting tired of debating someone who keeps shifting his arguments and playing games.

Let's break this argument down as simply as possible:

You claimed that Ron Paul has stated that he would never use military force without a declaration of war. This was shown to be incorrect.

Ron Paul on the floor of the House

Source: Campaign For Liberty — Ron Paul's Statement on Libya Resolution

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya. As many in the administration, Congress, and elsewhere clamor for the President to initiate military action to support those seeking to overthrow the Libyan regime, Congress sits by, as usual, pretending that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not exist. According to this long-ignored section, "The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.''

This is black letter law, not some aspirational statement by our Founders. Their intent was indisputably clear: Congress alone, not the Executive Branch, has the authority and the obligation to declare war if hostilities are to be initiated against a foreign state that has not attacked the United States.

Let us be clear about one thing: for the U.S. to take action to establish a "no fly'' zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. For the U.S. to establish any kind of military presence on the sovereign territory, waters, or over the airspace of Libya is to engage in a hostile action that requires Congressional authorization.

Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that this is a coup d'etat in a foreign country. What moral right do we have to initiate military action against Libya? Libya has not attacked the United States. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business.

I would remind my colleagues that we have been here before. In the 1990s we established "no fly'' zones and all manner of sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in an attempt to force him from power. When that did not work--at a high cost in Iraqi lives--the U.S. ultimately went to war to achieve these ends. The costs of this war, I do not need to remind my colleagues, was much higher even, in U.S. military lives, in Iraqi civilian lives, in our diminished moral standing in the world, in our economy. Yet none of us seem able to learn from an enormous mistake made only a few years ago. Once again a bad man is doing bad things thousands of miles away and once again irresponsible voices are demanding that the U.S. "do something'' about it. Will we ever learn? We continue to act as the policemen of the world at our own peril, and as we continue, we only accelerate our economic collapse.

Let the supporters of yet another war in the Middle East come forth to make their case for a U.S. attack against Libya. I will strongly oppose such a move, but it should be very clear that if a war against Libya is to be initiated, it must be declared by the proper Constitutional authority: the U.S. Congress.

The germane portion of this speech as pertains the current discussion follows:

... the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya. ...

... According to this long-ignored section, "The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.''

This is black letter law, not some aspirational statement by our Founders. Their intent was indisputably clear: Congress alone, not the Executive Branch, has the authority and the obligation to declare war if hostilities are to be initiated against a foreign state that has not attacked the United States ...

... if a war against Libya is to be initiated, it must be declared by the proper Constitutional authority: the U.S. Congress.

He very clearly states his position that the Executive Branch is not permitted to initate hostilies without a resolution by Congress. He, like so many on INGO and elsewhere, does not understand or chooses to ignore the debates the framers had surrounding the war powers in the Constitution, and that the draft was successfully amended to change the language from "make" war to "declare" war.

Now if this is not him saying that only Congrss can make war, WTF is it?

So by his own words he makes a claim that the Constitution says what it does not say. Why do you fail to accept his words?

I haven't yet nailed down your new argument. Please clarify:

There is no new argument. Only the same one you refuse to acknowledge.

Are you saying that you believe Paul would allow us to be directly attacked and wait for an act of Congress to defend us? THat's what I gathered when you said this:

You are the one changing the parameters of the discussion with the addition of the words "directly attacked". If we know an attack is imminent why should our Commander in Chief have to wait for Congressional approveal to thwart it? Do we have to wait for Congressional approval to respond offensively to an attack? According to Ron Paul's dogma, we do. That is unacceptable to me.

However, it has already been made clear that Paul does not intend to await an act of Congress to defend the nation.

Not so. He may carve out an exception for a direct attacks, but not for anything else.

So the only point that can remain is that you believe Paul will not initiate hostilities when we have not been directly attacked. There are two possible problems you could have with this:

1. Policy. You love war, and Paul's policies won't initiate enough of them. I don't have the capability of the motivation to change your mind on this, but it certainly does not qualify or disqualify him as president as the constitution does not require him to initiate wars, absent a direct attack upon us.

This is stupid and uinworthy of comment, other than to say it's stupid.

2. Constitutionality. You think that Paul is misinterpreting the constitution, and this effectively disqualifies him as president. I have not yet seen you provide any definitive evidence, either in the founders' statements or in the constitution itself that allows the president to initiate a war. I'm not certain why the framers of the constitution would even bother explicitly giving this power to the legislative branch if they expected the president to begin and continue any war that he wanted to. I have seen plenty of them express their opinions regarding interfering in other nations' affairs, and they certainly were not in favor of it. Clearly they intended the executive branch to be able to respond to hostilities in a timely fashion. Nobody here is denying this, so please stop propping it up as your straw man to attack.

That's only because you either fail to grasp or accept the framers rejection of the highly restrictive "make" war provision, accepting the argument that the Commander in Chief needs to be able to make or engage in war without Congressional action. As there is no definition of what declare war means (and it certainly doesn't mean make war since the convention rejected that language), the President is required to do whatever it takes within the bounds of his powers as Commander in Chief to execute the reponsibilities of his office. Paul has already said he will not.

Case law and actions occurring in the status quo are completely irrelevant to Paul's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, considering that he has stated no intention of violating either of them. Choosing not to initiate hostilities absent an act of Congress is in no way a violation of the constitution.

Not a violation of the Constitution, however it is an abdication of his constitutional responsibility to protect and defend this nation as Commander in Chief.