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.

[tpaine]

Whats Paul wrong about?

[I'll excuse your irrational groupspeak bull about libertarians as a silly plea for attention]

[Republican Wildcat]

The Congress has the power to "declare" war, while the President has the power to wage war as CIC. The Congress uses its budgetary power to check the President to stop him if they believe he is abusing authority. I did not see this segment, but if Paul is saying that the power to declare war and wage war are the same, then his views are based on something other than the Constitution. One only has to look back at the history of the Constitution and the debate over this wording when it was drafted to know that.

[constitution]

Remember' the President[the executive] only administers the law as written by Congress.

As Commander-in-Chief [the executive]the President can take certain 'emergency'actions to 'defend' the nation.

I believe the SCOTUS has ruled that neither branch of the government can 'delegate' its duties or responsibilities.

[Alissa]

This goes back to the balance of power. Defense falls under the Executive Branch of gov't, it is not under Legislature or Judiciary. But the Legislature must give the Executive office the funds, therefore the permission to activate Defense.

[Cicero]

I don't understand the problem. According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief and therefore runs the war. Congress declares it. In other words, they tell the President, "OK, go to it!"

As to whether a formal declaration of war is needed, that's up to congress. We have fought quite a few wars over the years without a formal declaration.

[Abcdefg]

I haven't seen THIS Congress do anything yet. I would like to see a vote before the elections so the voters could then have their say.

[jlogajan]

There are three federal bodies -- the prez, the congress, and the court. Unless one of them makes a stink about what the other(s) is(are) doing -- nothing is going to stop them.

I'm not saying it is good or bad in a given instance, just that in reality, "Constitutional" interpretations don't mean much if all branches of the government are in agreement with the intepretation de jure.

[holdonnow]

Ron Paul is wrong because Congress is, in fact, authorizing war via a joint resolution, and paying for the war via its spending powers. As I said earlier, if that's not a legitimate exercise of Congress's war-declaration power, then what is it? Furthermore, there's simply nothing in the Constitution directing Congress on the exact language or format it must use to declare war. There are no magic words that must be triggered.

[CatoRenasci]

Sorry, my bad, it was Origen who made himself a eunuch after over-literally reading Matthew ch 19:12 ... and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

[TheDon]

It would be too easy to put together a list of the most absurd things Ron Paul has said. Libertarians have much to offer on domestic issues, but they are an absolute danger to the nation on foreign affairs!

[lsee]

Here you go St. Augustine

[tpaine]

I've seen no quote from Paul on this thread on the issue.
What did he say that was wrong?

[Exit148]

How I love this place!!!!!

As soon as you posted your question, I wondered what that position was, granting the President X-amount of days to go after another nation AND PRESTO--- there it was!!! ----- The whole War Powers Act, submitted by Freeper 'jwalsh'!!!!!!!

I shouldn't be surprised. If you want to know something -- ask it here!

God bless Free Republic! (and make a donation so as to finish up the Freepathon!)

[holdonnow]

He never really explained his position.

[holdonnow]

I should add that Hannity told him pretty much what I wrote here earlier. Paul's response was to tell Hannity he sounded like Colmes, which was not an answer.

[tpaine]

Who never explained what position?
Texaggie never does, granted.

But Ron Paul is quite capable. -- All I've seen here are some flat statements that Ron P is somehow 'wrong'. Wrong about what?

[ConservativeNewsNetwork]

He's wrong because there is no transfer of congressional powers. Authorizing the President to take actions against Iraq isn't the same as forfeiting the right to declare war and control the budget. Since the basic premise of Ron Paul's argument is wrong, there is no need to answer anything related to that.

[hchutch]

I have to agree.

Heck, if I read the Congressional Resolution passed on September 14, 2001, Congress gave POTUS an open-ended license to take down al-Qaida and any nation that either helped with the setup of 9/11 OR any nation that harbors those al-Qaida scumbags. It seems to me that Iraq trained some al-Qaida operatives, and is currently harboring al-Qaida members. Congressman Billybob has covered this one quite well.

Plus, we've got the violations of the terms of the cease-fire signed in 1991. Now, violating terms of a cease-fire strikes me as grounds to re-start hostilities with the violator of said cease-fire.

Finally, the attempt on George Bush Sr. in 1993 (Human Events detailed that one in a recent article), strikes me as an act of war in and of itself.

We have our choice for suitable casus belli with Iraq. Pick whichever one suits you the best, Texaggie79. There are valid reasons to go to war with Iraq, and here are already TWO instances which are covered under Congressional authorization to use force - which is pretty much saying war is declared.

Even then, if for some reason none of the above were to be the case (someone would REALLY need to be in some alternate universe with tons of warped definitions), we could always say we were in "hot pursuit" of members of al-Qaida, and that we advise any nation where we are in said hot pursuit to stay out of the way.

[tpaine]

I haven't seen the basic premise of his argument.
'Holdonnow' who was there, said Ron really didn't make one. - Probably didn't have time, what with all the ratchet mouths on that show.
So this is all just speculation on what Paul might have meant. - Typical FR.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Bump to watch.