[mnehring]

Its nice to know how Paul disagrees with the Constitution:
“No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
The Constitution provides for several legal paths for armed conflict, not just a declaration of war. Heck, Paul himself voted for one of these non-declarations when he voted for the Afghanistan resolution. That was not a formal declaration of war.

“Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Again, Paul shows his ignorance. The Constitution in several places that we are to honor treaties. It also specifically states that Congress is authorized to define and punish offenses against the laws of nations. Sure, we should never be governed by a body like the UN, but there is nothing that says we can't us a body like the UN as a tool (laws of nations.)

[Fester Chugabrew]

The UN is a different animal than the individual, sovereign countries represented thereby. Acts of war on the part of our nation should be declared by us as a people, not on the basis of other authorities.

Ron Paul did vote in favor of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which in turn took us directly to Afghanistan where the terrorists made their home under the Tali-ban. Does this constitute a declaration of war on our part? In this case we were indeed attacked by terrorist on our own soil and our national security is threatened by the same.