We the People -- The Buck Stops Here! (A follow-up on Ron Paul)

The first truth we must find is a way to swallow this - we have exactly the government we elected!

Our Republican President has a public approval rating hovering around 30% and our Democrat congress has an approval rating down around 20%. Clearly, we don’t think much of our government, but we elected them and what does that say about us?

In my last column titled “Ron Paul—A Liberal-tarian, not a Conservative," I demonstrated how easy it is to attack any politician on his alleged voting record, demonize an entire group on the basis of a few in that group who are willing to use unethical tactics to promote their allegedly ethical candidate, and cause a firestorm of political banter, both pro and con, without ever really getting to the heart of the subject at hand.

“What do we say to the dead, what do we say to their survivors, we could not act because of the Constitution? I can only imagine their response.”

I know, you offered so much more, but I chose this since it gets to the crux of your position.

What’s the problem with declaring war? Why wasn’t war declared against Afghanistan? Why wasn’t war declared against Iraq? Why has congress had a problem declaring war since WW2? This simple act by congress makes the entire action legal. And everytime we have used it, we have won. Everytime we have not, we have failed to have a clear victory.

The Constitution is a contract between the states and the people. It can’t be amended without three fourths of the states agreeing.

Suppose I sell you a home and agree to finance it. You nearly have it paid for and I decide to ignore some of the terms of the agreement we both signed. I decide 3500 per month is no longer acceptable. I now want 4900 per month.
But you cant afford 4900 per month. Too bad I say, pay it or I will foreclose. Do you have rights under the original contract, or can I change it at will without your input?
(no clause in the contract which says I can.)

You get the picture right? I know you aren’t retarded. The US Constitution is a contract between we the people and the central govt of the United States. Are you sure you want to begin to ignore parts of it on a whim?

Just declare a dang war Congress like the Constitution requires. What’s the problem? Don’t know where the enemy comes from? I beg to differ. Record has it that 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers came from SA. Here’s your sign.

Meantime our defenders are still dying while building “democracies” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is why the Constitution must be followed. The congress as representatives of the people are responsible for declaring wars. Our founders had a purpose in mind in making this a part of the contract. Once a war is declared, the President is then responsible to direct them.

But what we have now is one man deciding where our troops go to battle and we still haven’t even recognized that 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers came from SA.

During the Clinton years, Clinton with an “authorization” bombed the hell out of the people of Yugoslavia. The same people who aided Americans during WW2 fighting the Nazis.
It seems the Serbs where having a war against Islamofascists. So Clinton determines to take the side of the Islamofascists to kill innocent Serbs.

Was this okay with you? Because this is the illegal power you propose to give any President.

Obey the Constitution. Declare war when proper.

All good and well. Then where is the line for declaring war?

One of the point oft made in these threads is not just the “declaring war” but the idea of preemptive war. that is the second part left out in your answer. If you have no issue with that, then we are golden, Declare war on whomever threatens us. However, while I don’t want to paint with a broad brush, the point I see made time and again in the same context is no preemption, no intervention, because it is not constitutional. What about that. That point is where I differ, not in declaring war but how were do it, before or after the million dead...

As to the piece about the Constitution, you are right I am not retarded (nice) but what is your point, I said it could be changed, and yes by 3/4 the people, so we agree, so we both are not retarded? As far as ignoring on a whim, I doubt it has been on a whim but better men than you or I have done that very thing.

Back to declaring war, you want to declare war against Saudi Arabia, but they are providing support for us in Iraq. The world is just not that simple anymore is it. Good and evil still exist, but evil hides in a lot more places now...

Since islamic evil attacked us on our shores, islamic evil need not be allowed to hide within the shores of America. Islamic evil need not be allowed to board our commercial airliners nor enter our country by any conveyence. Islam is not a “religion of peace.” In fact, islam is not a religion at all. Islam is an evil cult. Therefore, islam doesn’t qualify for Constitutional protections under freedom of religion.

We agree this evil cult does not fight a conventional war. It hides and strikes the unarmed innocent at will to return to hide within the population. The cult quietly invades enemy populations worldwide. It constructs or rents buildings to grow the cult. It grows with conversions of people of like mind, and it invites it’s fellow cult members from cult homelands to join them in their goal to grow the cult in the area. As it gains a foothold, and when it’s cult member numbers are sufficient within the enemy population, it moves to take over.

How exactly does your “pre-emptive strike” prevent this?

Because that evil also occupies a nation, one that as a state is belligerent to our Country, one named Iran.

I ask this simple question. Reagan bombed Libya, a sovereign nation, without declaring war.

Was this constitutional?

Was it beneficial?

What of strikes against the sovereign nation of Iran and its ability to make weapons that can cross our borders in ways that the Border patrol has no effect, and need not have operators with in our shores. Strikes against weapons that could kill millions just seconds after we are even aware they are coming.

Would that be Constitutional?

Would that be beneficial?

Because that evil also occupies a nation, one that as a state is belligerent to our Country, one named Iran. I ask this simple question. Reagan bombed Libya, a sovereign nation, without declaring war.
Was this constitutional?

The President as CIC is charged to respond to sudden attacks. The answer is yes.

Was it beneficial?

You might wish to ask the relatives of Peter Kilburn that one. You might also wish to ask the surviving family members of Pan Am flight 103 to see if it was beneficial to them and those they lost.

Are we still at war with like minded terrorists today? Was there a lasting benefit to anyone?

Iran will strike Israel first. So Israel will do the pre-empting on that one. Just like they did in Iraq when Saddam was attempting to build nukes. Israeli warplanes took out his sites.

Would that (for the US to strike Iran first) be Constitutional?

I doubt it without a declaration of war, but I might find a way to forgive it under the circumstance so long as it defeats them with a clear and precise victory. :)

Btw, I intended to address this from you earlier so I will now. There are no men or women in public service better than the rest of us. Allow me refresh your memory:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
Bottomline, no public official elected or appointed is any better than the rest of us. Under the Constitution, they serve we the people at our discretion and are our equals.

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.