Ron Paul Has Put Me on The Fence....

fox news ^

[Texaggie79]

Just saw Ron Paul on H&C. I hate to admit that I have always skimmed through his speeches on the floor, because I just assumed he was off base.

"Transferring war power to the President is unconstitutional"..... "We would have to change an amendment"....... Arguments posed by Doctor Paul.

On these terms, he is starting to win me over.

I still disagree that this is a non-provoked, because I believe that Saddam's refusal to obey the resolutions that kept him in power for 12 years is more than enough to act on. If we give in and do not follow through with the threat, how can our other enemies take us at our word? (hint:China.....Taiwan.....)

So, anti-war folks (if there are any left, teehee), have at me, pro-war folks, tell me how this transfer is not unconstitutional.

[stndngathwrthistry]

What transfer. If Congress authorizes military action, then where is the transfer of the power to declare war?

[for-q-clinton]

Since the powers of the Federal government are narrowly defined in the US Constitution, where in it is the Congress allowed to transfer powers to the Executive branch?

Hey if it's good for NJ and the SCOTUS doesn't rule...well then.... Just kidding

[jwalsh07]

OH, so you get to define terrorists. I've always wondered who was going to get to define them for us!

What do you consider Saddam Hussein?

Perhaps his anger at his father for not allowing him to cut off the heads of his playmates resulted in his bloodlust and thus we, society in general and Americans in particular, shoulder the blame for his atrocities.

[Always Right]

Congress does not have the authority to transfer their constitutional powers.

Stop them then......

[holdonnow]

I do get your point. But it seems pretty straightforward. If Congress authorizes the use of military force and pays for it, what then has Congress done BUT declare war? That's it for tonight. Bye-bye.

[Dog Gone]

Congress must authorize a military campaign. That much is clear from the Constitution. How they word that is irrelevant. Passing it as a Resolution is the way which is most obviously in keeping with the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't really provide strings for withdrawing that power, although they can certainly cut off the budget for the soldiers.

But, yes, they MUST pass that power to the President. It's required. Even the Founding Fathers knew that Congress couldn't run a war.

[JimSEA]

Under Paul's (St. Augustine"s) view of a "just" war, the first Iraq war was baseless as Iraq didn't invade us or directly threaten us. Further, the wars with Spain, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and all of Reagan's police actions were improper as well. The Afghan war is very questionable as the Taliban did not directly sent the terrorists and they were not Afghan. This is not an unusual arguement and can be heard in the Christian churches (liberal) and college campuses. The Berrigan Brothers, for all their radicalism, were very consistant during the 60's and 70's with just the sort of argument Paul was making.

I don't agree with it but I can understand the scriptural basis. I am afraid that, sinner that I am, I have a far darker view of human nature and survival.

[Senator Pardek]

Let me start out by saying I'm not "bullish" on attacking Iraq. "Having said that", there's no transfer of power, the citizens must cough up the $$$ (through their reps in DC).

If the Congress shows up with a bag of $$$ (they have it - I'm sure) at the Pentagon and says "have at it", it's good enough to go to war.

[jwalsh07]

Since the powers of the Federal government are narrowly defined in the US Constitution, where in it is the Congress allowed to transfer powers to the Executive branch?

What power did Congress transfer? Surely not the power to declare war. But I'm amenable to convincing. Show me the document that transfers that power to the POTUS.

[Texaggie79]

I believe that scripturally, one can derive that a nation is morally just in defending an Ally.

[dighton]

Ron Paul Has Put Me on The Fence

Let's be careful out there.

[weikel]

Im more libertarian then you but the thing they are most wrong on is foreign policy. I don't see anything in the constitution that says a declaration of war was neccasary to wage one. Thomas Jefferson waged an undeclared war against Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers.

[Always Right]

Since the powers of the Federal government are narrowly defined in the US Constitution, where in it is the Congress allowed to transfer powers to the Executive branch?

In reality what they are doing is declaring war. The consent of Congress and the execution by the President is all it takes. The people can exercize their power by throwing out the bums on November 5th, but since the people support the war, that isn't gonna happen. The Checks and Balances are in place, and the system is working. If Iraq doesn't disarm and submit to full inspections there shall be war.

[Route66]

'Nobody's transferring power. If Congress passes a resolution authorizing the use of military force, and if Congress also passes bills supporting those military forces under its spending authority, where's the tranfer? There's nothing in the Constitution describing exactly how Congress is to declare war. But it's very clear that if it authorizes the use of military force and further supports that authorization by funding it, then if that's not a declaration, what is it?'

That's right. Just because they do not use the words 'declaring war' in the authorization, does not mean the authorization is not valid. If they have funded and authorized action under certain circumstances, then the only thing left is for the President to pick the day.

[caltrop]

I share Ron Paul's opposition to the President's plans.

We've known that Saddam has had a well funded biological weapons program for almost twenty years. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the availability of Warsaw Pact scientists and material, it can only have advanced. At some point he'll have nuclear weapons. When he gets them all, he'll need is long range missles to make him as dangerous as North Korea is today.

Bringing the Mid-East to the point where Iraq could be a "51st State" is too ambitious a goal from where I'm sitting and, when that goal fails, we'll need to leave a US military presence in Iraq for the rest of time. My guess is it'll cost us far more than we'll gain and, after a period of costly frustration (at least), merely serve to remind us that the law of unintended consequences is alive and well.

Absent the oil, the entire Mid-East isn't worth an American sprained ankle. Since the Arabs can't eat oil, their only option is to sell the stuff. Which of them we buy it from isn't something we've cared much about to date and I see no reason we should change our attitude.

[Psycho_Bunny]

If I recall correctly, wasn't it St. Augustine who held that the penis was evil because it was beyond the control of the rational mind?

I just remember reading that in Russell's - History of Western Philosophy about 15 years ago.

[tpaine]

Any takers on what? - You haven't stated your position. Do you have one?

I took an oath to protect & defend the constitution, which I still honor. - And I'll back up Bush as long as he honors his.

How bout you aggie?

[Texas_Jarhead]

if anyone can persuade me on consitutional issues it's Ron Paul and the Liberty Committee

[JimSEA]

I believe that scripturally, one can derive that a nation is morally just in defending an Ally.

Yes. You can also present the argument that no war, no violence is acceptable. Ignoring the Gospel, you can argue for genocide as well. Of course, neither is convincing to me.

[CatoRenasci]

Perhaps you're thinking of Tertullian who castrated himself.