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.

[justshe]

Same bump.

[rb22982]

I tend to agree with your post #50, being a libertarian. IMO if Congress says OK in any matter of speaking as well as gives funding for it, they've given their declaration as far as Constitutionality is concerned. Although also IMO, a formal declaration of war would be preferrable for the following reasons.

1)The intent is well known
2)Congressmen have to directly say yes or no, therefore giving the stated goal more authority. They can't later on come back and say something completely different.
3)Generally would be more likely to throw our entire military might behind it, unlike say Vietnam where we never completely went full force.

[OPS4]

So more propaganda and B.S. just keeps on spewing.
Tell it to the family of our dead Marine in Kuwait.
Iraq is and has been our for Judeo/Christian Blood!
Ops4 God Bless America

[danmar]

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

Listen to yourself dude, you sound just like Billy Boy "it all depends what the meaning of "is" is". Which part of the "terrorist" word don't you understand?...are you so narrow minded that you can not comprehend the word "terrorist"?
I suggest for starters to use the on line free "Encyclopedia Britannica" to define the word "terrorist" for you and maybe just maybe you would understand the whole statement if that is not to hard on your intelect(or lack thereof).

[Jabba the Nutt]

Is an authorization a "transfer"? I haven't read the resolution. Does it say it "transfers" the war power to the President? Wouldn't make sense, if it did.

[respublica1776]

The War Power Act of 1973 frankly is unconstitutional. It sought to codify and at the same time limit the excesses and abuses of so called executive war powers in past, which began with FDR. In a sense it solidified the unconstitutional precedents set by so called 'police actions' or undeclared wars like Korea, Vietnam, or
peacekeeping missions under the auspices of the UN.

FDR paved the way for eroding our sovereignty and usurping Congressional authority over war powers with his internationalism and incessant demands for discretionary war powers in the event of 'an emergency, of course' or extraordinary circumstances. America has had numerous wars since WWII, yet not one was constitutionally declared... Korea was done under auspices of UN-approved police action or 'peacekeeping.' The President may be Commander-in-Chief, but this is in time of war, Congress has the power to declare war... and Congress can issue letters of marquee and reprisal, which as Rep. Paul said should have been the proper course of action against 'stateless' terrorists who attack our country.

All of these unconstitutional wars and peacekeeping where we appeal to the UN, for justification, for legitimacy, have served but one purpose- to bolster the United Nations' prestige, power and sovereignty. It tacitly concedes our military power is a constitiuent part of the UN and has eroded the sovereignty of our nation. All of this coalition building in the Gulf War, the Balkan conflict and other peacekeeping missions, which never end, create a perception of a need for a UN Security Force, which intervenes and squashes conflicts in the interest of 'human rights' or some idealist universalistic ideology 'of making the world safe for democracy.'

The elites rationalize this by pointing to the UN treaty ratified by Congress, which made the United States a constitiuent state within the United Nations and more or less made the UN Security Council the arbitrator, appellete source of approval that the US runs to in order to legitimize it's wars. Read the UN Charter...

For all of my avowed 'conservative' brethren who are all to eager to jump on the war bandwagon, and say Congress is behind the President while naively assuming that a mere resolution makes the action constitutional, I'd suggest you start reading your Constitution and studying history...
Congress has to issue a formal declaration of war to make a 'war' constitutional... Unless, of course, you feel the UN is our sovereign, than we have no shared frame of reference anyway.

But then again, expediency, the 'emergency' posed by our bogeyman- Saddam, the special contigencies of the situation at hand and naivity on the part of most Americans have always aided in the erosion of the Constitution and National Sovereignty. And just like it was in the hey day of the FDR New Deal- it is wraped up in the flag of patriotism and nationalism. Dissenters are chatised as pacifists and unpatriotic with Orwellian word games. Think about it- fellow conservatives... If you call yourself one than thank about conservatism's underlying principles: Constitutionalism, Federalism commensurate with the original intent of the founders, and Limited Government. The foreign policy articulated by the founders was one of armed neutrality, no entangling alliances and strategic independence. John Quincy Adams avowed, "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well wisher to the freedom of all and a vindicator only of her own."

You'd be poisoning the well... if you call me some peacenik pro-Saddam pacifist- or you could just gleebly say we don't need the UN, we can still get Congress behind the President with a 'resolution' have missed the entire point of my argument. That's what I have become accustomed to hearing when I criticize how we go to war without declaring war, but if you fancy yourself a conservative, a constitutionalist, and believe in the rule of law and share in the vision of the republic under a rule of law- than for the SAKE OF THE NATION, for affirming our SOVEREIGNTY, THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION- write the President, go write your representatives and demand a formal declaration of war and tell them to stop pussyfooting around with resolutions supporting the President's intervention. Make it clear to your friends and family, that if we go to war, than we should get a Congressional Declaration of War. A Congressional Declaration of War would signal that we're affirming our sovereignty, our Constitution, and we don't need the UN to legitimize or rubber stamp our wars. Let's end the perpetual war for pepetual peace gimmick of the UN and restore the Constitution.

[mrsmith]

I>"For all of my avowed 'conservative' brethren who are all to eager to jump on the war bandwagon, and say Congress is behind the President while naively assuming that a mere resolution makes the action constitutional, I'd suggest you start reading your Constitution and studying history... Congress has to issue a formal declaration of war to make a 'war' constitutional... "

Read some American history before you post such ignorant stupidity.

Washington's wars with the Wabash, Adams' war with the French, Jefferson's war with the pirates, all done by resolutions of congress.

What a fool to claim to know the Constitution better than our Founders.

What fools all lying Liberals are to try to pose on free Republic.

[respublica1776]

You said: "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."

Hey buddy, respectfully, why don't you study up on history and read Article I. Section 11. of the Constitution and try learning about the historical significance of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal," which was a grant of power given to Congress. You erroneously refer to the Barbary Pirate conflict as "an undeclared war" when letters of marquee and reprisal were used. I think you're being presumptious, and trying to legitimize an unconstitutional action with a rubber stamping resolution when a Declaration of War is in order for any attack and invasion of Iraq. Rep. Ron Paul has been very articulate in defending continued use of this Congressional power when in the national interest of protecting our citizens at home and abroad. Yet, many FREEPERS ignorantly dismiss him as a pacifist, crank and my favorite is likening him to "1960's liberals." Paul is steadfast in holding to the Constitution. It's not some archaic remnant of the past, but an appropriate measure in going after Barbary Pirates on the high seas or 'stateless' terrorists in the skys and in their training camps in the Mid-East.

[mrsmith]

"...letters of marquee and reprisal were used"

Even a child knows Jefferson sent the navy and marines against the pirates.

In 1803 Jefferson sent a seven-ship, thousand-man squadron against the pirates.
Later he sent six frigates, seven brigs, and ten gunboats.
Along with them he sent William Eaton and nine marines who organized a 600-man american-paid army and captured Derna.

Do yourself a favor and acquire at least an Elementary school level knowledge of US history.

Later you could learn about Washington's and Adams' wars.

[Congressman Billybob]

Good morning, my friend,

Your post is right on the button. The United States already has the three bases of legitimate authority to go to war against Iraq that you cogently outline. The only thing I add to what you said is that Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed the Senate on 14 September, 2001, but passed the House on 18 September, by inclusion in the Anti-Terrorism Act adopted that day and signed by President Bush.

As an historical note, SJR 23 gave Bush essentially the open-ended authority that Congress gave on 6 February, 1802, to President Jefferson to attack the Barbary Pirates wherever they were to be found. That means the "Further Resolution on Iraq" which Congress will pass this week, is constitutionally unnecessary.

This is a cosmetic move. The Democrats demanded, foolishly as it turns out, that Bush seek additional action by Congress on Iraq. So the President gave them what they asked for, "good and hard" as H.L. Mencken wrote. And now the Democrats are complaining that they got what they wanted and that the war is "politicized."

Thank God the Democrats are institutionally dumb and self-destructive. Otherwise, I fear they would beat the Republicans like a rented mule.

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[ConservativeNewsNetwork]

It seemed quite obvious to me that the basic premise is that there is a transfer of congressional power.

Do you have anything of substance to say, or are you just being a reverse bandwagon moron? You realize that just because the majority supports something doesn't mean it is wrong, don't you?

[Stat-boy]

IMHO, this is a very good post. Even when I do not agree with Ron Paul, I listen very carefully because I find that he is generally sincere and consistent in defending the Constitution. He is the first member of Congress that comes to mind when I think of politicians that I respect. Most Republicans these days are just “Democrat light”, but RP does not waiver. He voted against CFR, he respects the 2nd A, he votes against government entitlement programs, even when it may hurt his own district.

I am bothered by relying on the 1991 resolution for attacking Iraq. It seems to me that we gave up on that during the late 1990s. For example, it would be wrong for me to all of a sudden hand a severe punishment to my child for not making his bed if I had not instructed him to make his bed since 1998. On the other hand, to the extent that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks (for example, providing training, support, money), I think we are fully justified in eliminating Sadam in the interest of retaliation and preventing future attacks. That’s enough justification for me; and I think Congress authorized it in 2001.

[tpaine]

Isn' it obvious by now that I'm attempting to figure out just what point you morons think you're making?
Ron Paul has made many remarks on the record about this issue. Attack them. Why attack on what you speculate he may have said in a sound bite?
-- Even weirder, why attack me? - You and aggie must be brothers.

[Mordoch]

you sound just like Billy Boy "it all depends what the meaning of "is" is".

That was my point exactly. I'm glad someone caught that. Bush can define "is" anyway he wants to. He's just substituting a word.

[Cboldt]

Tongue firmly in cheek here (thinking like SCONJ):

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "declare War . . .", but nowhere does it say that the president can't, nor does it say that the Congress has the sole authority.

On a more serious note, the question of "war" is not black-and-white. Is our policing of the no-fly zone "war?" Why or why not? Can hostilities be initiated without a declaration of war? How long can military action be maintained without a declaration of war? See Korea and Viet Nam. Also, nowhere does it say that a Congressional declaration, should one be forthcoming, be unanimous. Many well-reasoned people were opposed to the Revolutionary War (they were wrong-headed, IMO, but that is another discussion)

[ConservativeNewsNetwork]

Sorry, I didn't mean to get in the way of your hero worship. If you don't want to be objective about things, that's fine. Just don't bitch about it when others are.

And here's a tip: Don't complain about people attacking your herd leader and then call other people morons for disagreeing with you in the same post. It makes you look foolish.

[ConservativeNewsNetwork]

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "declare War . . .", but nowhere does it say that the president can't, nor does it say that the Congress has the sole authority.

"Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

A right that is vested with a group of persons is a right that only those persons enjoy.

[tpaine]

You're an idiot. - I 'hero worship' no man. I do agree with him on most libertarian principles, which JR was good enough to post here:

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/721810/posts

You have apparently bought into the anti-libertarian bull & agit-prop spewed out by the FR communitarian crowd. Have fun wallowing.

[Cboldt]

Ahem . . . my comment that Constitution does not deny the President the power to declare war followed a pretty clear "tongue in cheek" intro.

FWIW, "rights" are often not exclusively possessed, nor should they be. "Powers," OTOH, should be expressly granted, and then to only one entity, so that responsibility for consequences of exercising the power can be assigned.

[ConservativeNewsNetwork]

I never mentioned anything about libertarianism. I never even said anything about Ron Paul's character. All I did was point out that the claim that there is an unconstitutional transfer of power is wrong, and you, for some reason, took personal offense to it. In fact, you never even responded to what I said about the claim. Why are you so worked up over this?

If you want to talk libertarianism, for the record, you're a prime example of why the Libertarian party in it's current form will never get more than 5% of the vote. You're short on substance and long on ad hominem. Instead of making reasoned points, you bitch about some sort of secret coalition against anyone that doesn't 'toe the party line,' which basically means anyone that isn't a libertarian. Anyone that disagrees with you is a moron or an idiot - and anyone in power that you agree with is elevated to the status of a minor god, and worshipped fervently. Almost as bad as a soccer mom and Clinton.

Some tips for your party:
1. Do a criminal background check before putting a candidate on the ballot. At the very least, there shouldn't be any current warrants out on them.
2. Psych screenings could help. Spitting on interviewers doesn't impress anyone.
3. You'll never win any sort of argument by calling the other side a bunch of morons.
4. Likewise, you won't convince anyone to vote for you by saying the only reason they don't is because they're a moron.

I hope this information will be useful for you. I'm sure that there are a lot of decent libertarians out there, but the problem for them is that people like you are the ones in the public eye.