I think that trying to elect a President faithful to the Constitution is trying to “seek to change the conditions” that have us killing our troops to serve globalist interests in a context where we are not “allowed” to fight to win.
Dr. Paul’s stance on the war is a tiny, tiny component of a larger (and now-radical) world view that would actually foster a Free Republic, unlike the rest of the candidates, all of whom are tone-deaf to the Constitution in one fashion or another. I think there is a good case to be made that Dr. Paul is dead wrong on pulling out now that we got in (the “fight to win” alternative still being preferrable), but in the context of the larger problems of national bankruptcy and federally-driven moral decline, the Iraq War is a sideshow. I support him even if he is wrong about pulling out, because he is right about more important issues.
Your statement that “Congress gave the President the power” seems to miss the whole point of Constitutional government. Whatever legitimate powers Congress and the President have come from the Constitution. The President is the Commander in Chief. Once Congress declares war, it is his business how to wage it. The Constitutional method for dealing with terrorists short of declaring war would be letters of marque and reprisal.
The issue of Marque and Reprisal was raised before Congress by Dr. Paul after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and again on July 21, 2007. Dr. Paul, defining the attacks as an act of “air piracy,” introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, which would have granted the president the authority to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. Dr. Paul compared the terrorists to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.
If today’s release is genuine, it suggests that the Commander in Chief has been unable or unwilling to capture Bin Laden for many years now. I rather suspect that mercenaries unconstrained by the State Department and our rules of engagement could do a better job.
Actually, SEC. 2. FINDINGS. [Finding 6.] of that 2001 act states the following:
(6) That under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to punish, deter, and prevent the piratical aggressions and depredations and other acts of war of the al Qaeda conspirators.
Dr. Paul himself finds Al Qaeda has performed an act of war against the United States. Those are his words from his bill.
Since war has been declared against the United States (as recognized by Dr. Paul), a declaration of war by Congress is superfluous. Congress has acted, giving the President all the powers he needs to fight Al Qaeda. We can discuss whether we have made the most sensible and proactive use of our options, but the right to wage war should NOT be part of that discussion. To make it so only show our enemy our divisions, and gives him strength to continue on against us.
That's rich.
L.Ron cannot even READ the Constitution, let alone attempt to sing along to it.
Paulian nonsense.
First of all Congress authorized the POTUS to use military force, a de facto declaration of war. There is no constitutiinally mandated method of "declaring war", a brief "kick Iraq's Ass with the US Military" would suffice as a declaration.
Secondly, Letters of Marquee and Reprisal are not issued to a POTUS, they are issued to private citizens.
Presumably with Ron in charge, we would disband our intel services, ie: the CIA and FBI, and issue Letters of M&R to the local private eye and "soldiers of fortune" to fight our wars. Frank Church and Robert Toricelli would agree with Ron Paul on the deballing of our intel but I don't think many conservatives will.
Breathtaking stupidity.