[Mitchell]

Upon further review, the quote was taken out of context.

Sorry about jumping to conclusions without seeing the entire video first.

No foul.

Thanks, Momaw Nadon. Your post confirms what I already knew, that most people on FR are fair-minded.

Paul is just saying that we don't live in a dictatorship so it normally isn't up to the President all by himself to authorize a military retaliation; under usual circumstances, Congress needs to provide the Constitutional authorization.

Paul would agree that, of course, there have been many cases requiring U.S. retaliation. But that means retaliation authorized by Congress (and then carried out by the President as Commander-in-Chief), since that's how the United States government works under the Constitution.

There haven't yet been any unusual cases that where there was so little time to get Congressional approval that the President could reasonably have retaliated unilaterally.

[dha]

Interesting.

[ARridgerunner]

Thanks for the great posts, Mitchell.