Ron Paul: Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq

House Floor ^ | 10 Sept 02 | Dr. Ron Paul

[habs4ever]

Ron Paul is just a talker, nothing more.Blabbering about procedures and minutia, as if that is supposed to be a substitute for hard thinking.And it is left to the more "simplistic" to make the hard, fast decisions while he fritters and hums and haws while striking bold, noble poses.

Welcome to the off-off-off fringe theatre company starring Ron Paul ;-)

[Mark Bahner]

"Baloney."

Simple fact, Tex. (Don't they teach y'all how to read in Texas?)

Show me the Congressional declaration of war on the Taliban. It doesn't exist.

[Texasforever]

It is not just the libertarians it is also a growing number of Birchers that have joined up lately.

[Isle of sanity in CA]

Someone named gunshy who can't wait to pull the trigger. Go figure ;-)

[FreedomFriend]

What a Patriot!

[Texasforever]

a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

[Admin Moderator]

Don't do that. Thanks, AM

[Mark Bahner]

"The Constitution says our president is responsible for the defense of the Constitution."

Well, he's doing a pretty #$@% lousy job! He went to war against the Taliban without a Congressional declaration of war. He egregiously violated the First Amendment by signing CFR. He lobbied for and signed an INCREASE in federal public school funding.

I could literally name 100 ways in which he's violated his oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution."

[FreedomFriend]

Consider yourself not alone, as I am a conservative who doesn't support this.

[FreedomFriend]

I'm 100% Conservative, nor do I support drug legalization. However, are you saying that you're not a conservative if you do not support a war with Iraq?

[terilyn]

Does that $69.95 include postage & handling? ;)

[Mark Bahner]

"a) That the president is authorized to...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..."

Yes, so? Where does it say, "The government of the United States hereby declares war on the Taliban government of Afghanistan?"

Since you don't seem to be able to identify one, here's what it would look like:

"Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/dec/dec05.htm#war

[#3Fan]

Well, he's doing a pretty #$@% lousy job! He went to war against the Taliban without a Congressional declaration of war.

The Constitution says the president is responsible for the defense of the Constitution. Congress doesn't have a country to declare war against.

He egregiously violated the First Amendment by signing CFR. He lobbied for and signed an INCREASE in federal public school funding.

Those are legislative issues, not defense issues. Are you saying that the president should arrest any congressman that he feels supports legislation that is unconstitutional?

I could literally name 100 ways in which he's violated his oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution."

Because you're a libertarian footstomper who doesn't think about what he does.

[habs4ever]

It damned well better!and include sales taxes too ;-)

[FreedomFriend]

Civiliaztion CREATED war, you dumbf**k!

Not very civilized.

[gortklattu]

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? 2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

Not a good start.

The risk of retaliation now is preferable to the risk of greater retailiation later.

[jwalsh07]

Hey, why don't you post the section of the Constitution requiring Congress to declare war.

Then post the SCOTUS case declaring the War Powers Act unconstitutional.

Life isn't what you want it to be, it is what it is.

You're argument that Bush somehow usurped the authority of Congress is nothing more than a lie, ideological bs.

[Texasforever]

Where in the Constitution does it give the format for a War declaration. Where in the Constitution does it REQUIRE congress to declare war in the first place. All the constitution does is vest the POWER to Declare War it does NOT require Congress to do so for a state of war to exist and it sure as hell does not provide a boilerplate for the wording. Your "argument" such as it is not based on an analysis of what the Constitution actually says but what you have convinced yourself it should say.

[SirAngus]

Repeat after me....

Follow the Herd...

Follow the Herd....

[justshe]

You sir, are wrong.

The War Powers Resolution states that the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces.

It requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization.


One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.