and he also believes iran should have nuclear weapons. So if he gets elected with your help and bethlehem gets nuked, I’m holding you accountable. Cool?
I am not a fan of Paul’s foreign policy, but he is dead on with the war declarations.
The problem with Paul is he is ignoring parts of the Constitution regarding use of military force in saying it can only be used with a ‘formal declaration of war’ as worded the way he expects. Declarations of war work against a specific nation-state but doesn’t apply against groups who don’t fight for a nation like terrorist organizations or organized crime. Using just the declaration of war option limits the scope of how our military can defend us.
Let’s take a look back at the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 gives three uses for military force. 1. A formal declaration of war. 2. Suppressing insurrections or rebellions. & 3. Punishing piracy and offenses against the law of nations.
The last one is important because it gives Congress the means to defend our nations interest when it comes to non-formal war where things such as a treaty with us is violated or there is asymmetrical military action against us (such as the Barbary pirates Jefferson went after).
Congress did use #3 in our move against Iraq as they had violated treaties with us as well as other treaties we are co-signatories with.
Remember, the Constitution declares that treaties are to be considered high law of the land, the only thing other than itself it uses. Unless Congress de-ratifies said treaty, it is an agreement we are obligated to honor.
Also, note, back in 2001, Paul agreed with this when he voted to go into Afghanistan under the ‘authorization to use force’ versus a declaration of war (#3 above).
This is why it is important to not play with the Constitution like Paul does. He is using this line like the left does when they tried to make Bush a war criminal but he is contradicting his own votes regarding Afghanistan.
What is important is to have a Congress that specifically puts the US interest first and not does or says things for political soundbites.
True.. some people are for the Constitution and some are for the Constitution kinda.. partially..
Ron Paul is for the Constitution..
Others are kinda sorta for the Constitution..
I believe Ron Paul believes in the Monroe Doctrine i.e. ...The doctrine put forward that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence...
Your not alone despite how it may seem here. There are a lot of overstatements about Ron Paul. People from the right and here on FR attack him unmercifully. Disagree with him is fine, but it gets nasty. I have not been a Paul supporter this election or the last. Last time I like Fred Thompson, this time Herman Cain. Neither worked out for me. I tend to like non establishment types and those that don’t flip flop. I’m without a candidate at the moment and unlike many would consider Ron Paul. Of coarse I am one of those that voted for Ross Perot and get blamed for Clinton.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that your old age prevented from reading Congresswoman Bachmann’s site or statements. Otherwise, you’d be a liar and partisan propagandist.
And he supports homosexual marriage, homosexuals openly serving in that same military, etc etc.
Aside from the current president, who has sent troops to fight on behalf of the United Nations without congressional approval?
Ron Paul is against the UN and believes wars should be declared when they are in the US interest.
Congress authorized the President to use all necessary force to defend American interests in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is the functional equivalent of a Declaration of War.
The Constitution does not prescribe a specific formula be used in a declaration.
In any case, a majority of Congress can always defund any military operation the President engages in of which they disapprove.
The US military has been involved in well over a hundred (depending on which you count) operations in its history that involved extended combat. I believe exactly five of those involved a formal Declaration of War by Congress. No Declaration of War was involved, by either side, in our most deadly conflict, the Civil War.
Methinks this whole notion that military force cannot be used without a formal congressional Declaration of War is just plain silly. With the US as dominant as it is militarily, no State in its right mind would put itself into a position where such a declaration would be reasonable.
OTOH, I believe we should have the right to declare formal war on NGOs such as al Quaeda and attack them and their supporters wherever found.
I doubt if he would do anything in support of the U.N. Ron Paul has written legislation to withdraw from the U.N., and few other Congressmen have signed onto it.
"I'm not too happy with his position of never engaging with foreign countries although I think that that may be an overstatement."
Yes, that is an overstatement, or more correctly, an over-simplification of a misinterpretation of his position.
Oh, and it's o.k. with me of you decide to support Ron Paul.
Right, and he also believes that Iran deserves, and has every right to be Nuclear armed. (And we have no right, or authority to deny them one.)
But go ahead, be amazingly stupid anyway and vote for RUN Paul!