Posted on 06/25/2023 10:43:47 AM PDT by RandFan
When faced with questions relating to America’s role in the world, we would be wise to heed the advice of our Founding Founders. George Washington urged distance from the “frequent controversies” of Europe. Thomas Jefferson pursued a course of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
As NATO continues its post-Cold War expansion, it is worth pointing out that, by its own terms, the NATO Treaty does not commit Americans to the military defense of our allies. To that end, I introduced a resolution reasserting that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty does not supersede Congress’s responsibility to declare war or authorize military force before engaging in hostilities.
For decades, many legislators have incorrectly interpreted Article 5 as an obligation that unquestionably commits the United States to provide military support should a NATO ally be attacked. To support their assertion, those who pine for a perpetual Pax Americana paraphrase Article 5 of the NATO Treaty by stating that, “an attack against one or is an attack against all.”
But that is not exactly what Article 5 states. Article 5 states, “The Parties agree that an armed take against one or more of them . . . shall be considered an attack against them all and . . . each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense . . . will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith . . . such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force…” In other words, NATO allies are committed to assist each other in the event of an attack, but military action is not mandated, and the United States maintains its sovereign capacity to determine what kind of response is warranted.
Furthermore, Article 11 of the NATO Treaty states that the provisions of the Treaty are to be carried out in accordance with each country’s respective constitutional processes.
The Constitution grants to Congress the sole authority to determine where and when we send our sons and daughters to fight. We cannot delegate that responsibility to the president, the courts, an international body, or our allies. This is a constitutional responsibility that all members of Congress have freely taken and one that the American people expect us to uphold.
I proposed the same text of my resolution when the Senate was considering the inclusion of Sweden and Finland into NATO. At the time, some of my colleagues questioned my approach, and one in particular argued that that my proposal would demonstrate to our allies that the United States is going “wobbly” on Article 5. I would argue that our men and women in the field do not want Congress to go wobbly on the Constitution.
Over the years, there has been a disturbing trend of executive overreach, undermining the checks and balances that our founders established to prevent such abuses of power. Collective defense should not be used as a pretext to bypass the constitutional requirement for congressional approval. By clarifying that the NATO Treaty does not supersede the Constitution, we can respond to those who would deceive the public about what America’s commitments are and renew our commitment to the highest law in the land. Respecting congressional war powers does not hinder our national security or imply a disregard for treaties. On the contrary, it ensures that the decision to use military force is subjected to rigorous scrutiny and debate by the representatives of the people, just as our Founding Fathers intended.
We must continue to show our fealty to the Constitution and elevate diplomacy to the forefront of United States foreign relations. For years I’ve led the fight to return war-making powers to Congress where they belong, and I’m proud to continue those efforts by introducing this resolution with support in the Senate and House of Representatives. It’s long past time that we respect the balance of power and reassert Congress’s voice.
Written by
Senator Rand Paul
Crazy! Rand must be a colluding with the Russians and Chinese! /s
Trump -Paul 2024
The only good thing Brandon has done in his stolen Presidency is tell China publicly in plain English “If you invade Taiwan we will fight”. Ambiguity may please diplomats and scholars, but lack of ambiguity prevents avoidable wars.
I like Rand, but I think he is wrong about this.
The attack several years ago must have addled his brain even more than it was.
Just after the WW2 Tehran Conference, Stalin said to a journalist, (roughly translated):.
"It's high time the Slavic race was in charge of Europe."
Never forget that modern-day Muskovite form of government is in part derived from the Mongol hordes who over-ran the region in the 13th century. They never really left..
The Neocons DESPERATELY need Putin to attack a NATO country, so that they can FINALLY kick off their World War 3 plans.
We have to make it really clear to our friends and allies that if you get nuked because you do something really stupid - that’s on you.
When you made that up, did you realize that Stalin was not slavic
LOL. I read the headline and mistakenly thought it referred to the deep-state, neocon think tank named RAND - and I thought, the world is turned upside down!
Then I realized, its just Rand Paul and his usual common sense.
Rand was my first Choice in2015, before he flamed out. Still disappointed that Trump did not reform the TSA and NSA.
Get
The
US
Out
Of
NATO
!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.