RON PAUL: "Before We Bomb Baghdad....."

Ron Paul's website ^ | 3-4-02 | Ron Paul

[VRWC_minion]

But the wording of the actual resolution is what counts. That resolution gave Bush the power to go after anyone he believes planned or aided, or harbored. That is much more than directly involved.

[oursacredhonor]

I guess it is just a matter of opinion. If you "planned or aided, or harbored" the terrorists, you are "directly responsible" in my book.

[rightwing2]

Yet I remain convinced we should be very cautious before we send troops and bombs into Iraq. It's simple to point out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, but it's not so easy to demonstrate that he poses a threat to us. We should also remember that the congressional resolution passed immediately after September 11th, which I supported, authorized military force only against those directly responsible for the attacks- and there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq played a role in those attacks. This leaves me with two serious concerns: first, the near-certainty that this coming war will be undeclared, and hence unconstitutional; and second, that such a war does not serve our best interests. First and foremost, we must follow the Constitution and require that the President secure a congressional declaration of war before he proceeds against Iraq...Constitutional questions aside, we have to ask ourselves quite simply whether it serves any national interest to invade Iraq.

Remember, Iraq has not initiated aggression against us. We, on the other hand, have bombed them, taunted them by flying military jets in their airspace, and starved them with economic sanctions- all for more than a decade. We haven't done these things out of humanitarian concern for Kuwait, we've done them because we want to protect our oil interests. Yet these actions have harmed the people of Iraq, not the Hussein regime. If anything, our policies serve to generate support for Hussein, who uses American aggression as a convenient scapegoat to deflect attention from his own oppression. Sadly, we've made him a martyr in Iraq and much of the wider Muslim world, alienating many otherwise pro-Western Iraqi moderates in the process. I question the wisdom, and the necessity, of once again traveling 6000 miles to pick a fight with a third-world Muslim nation that is simply not threatening us.

I fear that we are about to embark on an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Iraq that is exceedingly unwise and fraught with unforeseen consequences. This war will have nothing to do with US national security or Iraqi aggression. It will, however, make us all less secure by antagonizing millions of Muslims.

The brilliant counsel of this great man, Rep. Ron Paul, the unquestioned conservative leader of the House of Representatives is completely in harmony with the foreign policy advocated by our noble and wise founders. Paul is articulating an America First foreign policy on Iraq advocated by an even more famous and renowned conservative champion, Pat Buchanan, in his acclaimed and scholarly book on American history and foreign policy, A Republic, not an Empire. Together Rep. Paul and Pat Buchanan are providing principled leadership for America First conservatives against the War Party in the White House led by neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz that say we must attack every possible threat country in the world beginning with Iraq before they even have the capability to attack us. This is the policy of unprincipled one-world government NWO imperialism and must be repudiated by conservatives throughout the country especially those in positions of leadership in Congress if we are to remain a free, independent and sovereign republic.

[NMC EXP]

I'm always amazed that Congress is quite willing to simply give away one of its greatest powers, especially when it spends so much time otherwise trying to expand its powers by passing extra-constitutional legislation.

Ron Paul is right. Congress has divested itself of Constitutionally mandated responsibilities via legislation (federal reserve), by ommision (war declaration), and delegation (pass a vague outline, and let the bureaucrats actually write the law).

This left the congresscritters with so much time on their dirty little hands they cannot help but barge into areas prohibited to them by the Constitution.

Regards

J.R.

[VRWC_minion]

But keep reading the stated purpose

, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That gives Bush pretty broad authority to react to other nations. All he needs to say is he believes that the action he is about to take against someone,no matter how indirect, will be in order to prevent future attacks.

The last part of the sentence is open ended enough to encompass others.

[oursacredhonor]

"...in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

To me, the resolution is still referring to those directly responsible. I don't see it as an open-ended free-for-all.

[Beenliedto]

I still don't care what he thinks

Well, my friend....

If you are so ignorant that you have to ask who Ron Paul is...

...I damned sure don't care what YOU think!

[VRWC_minion]

Even at the time it was discussed it was clear to all that the war would take us to many places. It was also clear that Bush would not be required to demonstrate a direct connection. The explicit language of the resolution reflects that.

A different reading is an attempt to parse away the orginal meaning and intent.

[Huck]

First and foremost, we must follow the Constitution and require that the President secure a congressional declaration of war

My question to Mr. Paul is this: Where does the Constitution require a declaration of war? It provides for Congress to declare war, but I don't see where it requires the Executive to get a declaration. And apparantly, most other folks don't see it either. Someone show me where I am wrong.

[jwalsh07]

You're asking the wrong guy, I've been arguing that point for a long time. But you knew that. :-}

How's married life treating you?

[Argus]

In this case, ignorance is bliss.

[oursacredhonor]

"My question to Mr. Paul is this: Where does the Constitution require a declaration of war?"

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Consitution.

"It provides for Congress to declare war, but I don't see where it requires the Executive to get a declaration."

What would be the point of this provision if it didn't require the Executive to get a declaration?

[Huck]

What would be the point of this provision if it didn't require the Executive to get a declaration?

How should I know? Diplomatic reasons? International protocol? Fact is, from the standpoint of strict construction, I can't find any requirement in the Constitution along the lines of "Congress shall authorize no troops without a declaration of war." That would settle the matter, 'cept it ain't there.

[oursacredhonor]

I'll check the Federalist Papers when I get home. There has to be mention of it in there. This is a very interesting debate and I am curious to see what the Founders actually thought.

[Huck]

Sounds good. A big change in the dynamic since then--standing Federal armies. But ping me when you find something.

[Yardstick]

Could you ping me, too? I've seen this issue debated around here quite a bit lately, but I have yet to see anyone really nail it down. It's amazing how quiet the Constitution is on some really important stuff -- sometimes its brevity and sketchiness seem almost haiku-like to me. I suppose this is a good thing, though, when you've good people in Washington to flesh it out.

Anyway, I'm curious to see what the Federalist Papers say.

Thanks!

[oursacredhonor]

This is Alexander Hamilton writing in Federalist 69:

In most of these particulars the power of the President will resemble equally that of the King of Great-Britain and the Governor of New-York. The most material points of difference are these--First; the President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation, as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The King of Great-Britain and the Governor of New-York have at all times the entire command of the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article therefore the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the Monarch or the Governor. Secondly; the President is to be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great-Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the confederacy: while that of the British King extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the Constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.

The role of the President as Commander in Chief is to simply direct the armed forces after they have been called to action by the Congress of the United States. You are correct in the fact that the language in the Constitution is vague but I believe this to be the original intent.

[Huck]

Interesting, but "legislative provision" and "declaration of war" are not necessarily the same thing. From Article One, the relevant Legislative powers:

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

So it appears to me that, as you point out, the Legislative Branch is vested with more military powers than the Executive, but I still do not see a requirement placed on the Legislature to declare war in order to call forth the militia. The power to call forth the militia is acceptable to repel invasions, with or without a declaration of war, based on a plain reading. Well then, nowadays we don't "call forth state militias", because we have a professional standing army, but the Legislature has authorized the calling forth of our Armed Forces, at the request of the Executive, for defensive purposes. Seems all right and proper to me.

[Yardstick]

Thanks so much for the ping and the info. I still don't feel like I've got a good logical lock on this thing, and I think it's because I'm not sure of exactly what it means to "declare war". As Huck points out, there are two powers -- that of "declaring war" and that of "calling out the militia" -- and excercising the first doesn't appear to be a pre-requisite for excercising the second. If this is the case, then the power to wage war is effectively contained in the calling out of the militia, so long as the action can be placed under the rubric of "repelling invasions". So the question in my mind is: why bother declaring war?

[GOP_1900AD]

Every time Ron speaks / writes, he moves further from any semblance of nationalism or true Conservatism. Back when he first started out, he was a Conservative with a healthy dash of Libertarianism. Now, he's an anti-nationalistic, anarchistic, utopian who would rather see the US cower in our corner of the world until someone nukes us than to compromise his Libertarian utopianism with the harsh realities of a geopolitical jungle where naive isolationism always leads to reactive and belated defensive war without adequate preparation. We were lucky there were no ICBMs or other serious projection capabilities in the late 1930s - early 1940s. If the same scenario gets repeated now, we're so hosed. Hey look, I can fully comprehend the appeal of Libertarianism when it comes to domestic issues, busy body legislation, taxation and regulation of business. But when it comes to geopolitics, the Libertarians need to get out of the way and let the big dogs play through!