DeFAZIO, PAUL INTRODUCE BILL TO REPEAL BUSH’S BLANK CHECK FOR WAR

www.house.gov/defazio ^ | 2/5/03 | defazio-Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-TX)

[Jim Noble]

>>He won't, there is too much of a chance that he'd be turned down<<

I think there is no chance he would be turned down, but

That raises an interesting question-if a Declaration of War failed in Congress, do you all think Bush would still have the power to go to war?

[EBUCK]

I think he would but it would certainly hurt him overall.

It's one thing to go with the kinda-sotra approval of congress but quite another to go with their explicit denial.

Remember, we are in a state of emergengy (since '29?) and the prez can legally do whatever he wants by way of executive order etc..

He could do it but he wouldn't and still win in 2004.

[EBUCK]

Don't know much about them but I read Garrett's pre-election page and he seemed to be a pretty good conservative if a bit of a bush-bot...

And just what is it you find wrong with Ron Paul?
His staunch support of the Constitution, limited Government, Individual Freedom, Republican Federal Government (not, by a long shot, the party)?

[okie01]

I wanted Colin to show how Saddam is a threat to us.

He didn't.

Out of curiosity, where do you think the anthrax came from?

[Turbodog]

I certainly recognize that Saddam Hussein is a world class bad guy, but he's in a neighborhood that's full of bad guys and which, except for the oil - which they must sell to eat, isn't worth an American sprained ankle. Since there is no Iraqi link to 9/11 this whole exercise seems like a fool's errand to me.

Being in the “neighborhood that’s full of bad guys” is what makes Saddam so dangerous. An AQ on the run is not necessarily the only terrorist organization that has capabilities to deliver WMD. Not to mention the proximity of Saddam in the heart of the world’s oil supply is extremely dangerous, especially if Saddam makes an irrational decision to hold the world hostage by destroying that supply. Who said the criteria was an Iraqi link to 9/11?

[Catspaw]

I'm all for Ron Paul running for president again. He'd have to give up his House seat to do it, right?

[Catspaw]

Ron Paul is a special breed of RINO.

[EBUCK]

So, because he puts the Constitution and principle above party he's a bad boy????? Gees, I'd think you'd actually appreciat the guts it takes to take a stand like that. Guess not, party is all important, nevermind what the party supposedly stands for.

I'd also think in times like these one would want to "know" that what they're doing is right. Think of the uneasiness in our troops that would be relieved if they has the full backing of a Cogressional Declaration of war behind them, with all of the positive votes that go along with said declaration. Whereas now, they don't know what is going to happen. They could get hung out to dry by liberal politicians in the near future because there is no real binding document on the effort.

[oldtimer]

Huh? What is going on here?

[EBUCK]

Ron Paul is a special breed of RINO.

Yah, the kind that actually takes republican principles to heart rather than to the bathroom.

[Catspaw]

You mean he's not really a Libertarian? For clarification, when he ran for President, did Ron Paul run on the Republican ticket or the Libertarian ticket?

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Bush will ask Congress to declare war.bookmark this.

He did, they debated it and passed it.

Did you sleep through it?

The Court has ruled that a joint resolution passed by congress authorizing war fills the legal requirement of a declaration of war.

From the Padilla case:

The critics are certainly correct that we must remain eternally vigilant about our civil liberties. But we are in a period of crisis, a crisis legally the equivalent of a declared war. Formal declarations of war are an anachronism--no country has issued a true declaration of war in more than half-a-century, and such instruments were historically necessary only to initiate major acts of international aggression, which is now illegal under the U.N. Charter. But the Supreme Court held as early as 1800, in Bas v. Tingy, that Congress could "authorize war" by joint resolution without framing it as a formal declaration of war. Last Sept. 14, Congress did precisely that by a combined vote of 516-1.

We have been in a declared war for some time.

These guys know that, they want to un-declare war.

[Dog Gone]

I wanted Colin to show how Saddam is a threat to us.

Since he was talking to the UN, and how Saddam is defying the UN, it would have been a little off-topic for him to do so.

But, if you don't think Saddam is a potential threat to us, then you were sadly born with no creative abilities.

[Benrand]

Ron Paul is an ostrich. On some things. he is very persuasive, but here he is shrill and closed minded.

[caltrop]

If a link to 9/11 isn't the criteria then what is? The world's full of bad guys, are you proposing we go after all of them?

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...I think there is no chance he would be turned down, but...

The Court ruled that the legal requirement for declaration of war has been filled.

[carenot]

Out of curiosity, where do you think the anthrax came from?

From what I read and heard on the news it was from the US.

They quit talking about it tho. I don't remember them ever saying that Iraq did it.

[LS]

Nope. If ol' ronnie had his way, there would be a 9/11 every week, because we would NEVER deal with a threat outside of Texas.