Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Now provide a passage from the Constitution that states the ONLY option is to declare war. Let me help you, you won't find it. What you will find is that the President is commander in chief and with consent of Congress can do anything he wants with our military.
Then what is the point of a declaration of war?
There is this little gem from Alexander Hamilton regarding declarations of war, and Presidential war powers:
"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, bit in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing 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 of which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."
In other words, the President can't do anything until war has officially been declared by the legislature.
And now provide any evidence that any conflict we have been in with out a declaration of war was not properly approved of and paid for by Congress. Once again just because Congress has the power to declare a war does not mean that is all they can do. If that were the intent it would be worded that way.
You are aware we had one of our first conflicts with Barbary Pirates in North Africa, remind me, was there a declaration of war? Almost all the founders were still alive then. Perhaps you can find me a dissertation from some of them on how the Barbary Pirate conflict was mishandled because all Congress was allowed to do when faced with foreign aggression was declare war.
Then what is the point of a declaration of war?
There is this little gem from Alexander Hamilton regarding declarations of war, and Presidential war powers:
"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, bit in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing 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 of which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."
In other words, the President can't do anything until war has officially been declared by the legislature.
And now provide any evidence that any conflict we have been in with out a declaration of war was not properly approved of and paid for by Congress. Once again just because Congress has the power to declare a war does not mean that is all they can do. If that were the intent it would be worded that way.
You are aware we had one of our first conflicts with Barbary Pirates in North Africa, remind me, was there a declaration of war? Almost all the founders were still alive then. Perhaps you can find me a dissertation from some of them on how the Barbary Pirate conflict was mishandled because all Congress was allowed to do when faced with foreign aggression was declare war.
It is all the Constitution says they can do on the matter, and that's how it is worded. They're not given authority in the Constitution to do it any other way.
That the government didn't declare war on the Barbary Pirates in the early days of the republic isn't proof that it wasn't unconstitutional.
The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars
Our foreign policy was in the spotlight last week, which is exactly where it should be. Almost two years ago many voters elected someone they thought would lead us to a more peaceful, rational co-existence with other countries.
However, while attention has been focused on the administrations disastrous economic policies, its equally disastrous foreign policies have exacerbated our problems overseas. Especially in times of economic crisis, we cannot afford to ignore costly foreign policy mistakes. Thats why it is important that U.S. foreign policy receive some much needed attention in the media, as it did last week with the leaked documents scandal.
Many are saying that the Wikileaks documents tell us nothing new. In some ways this is true. Most Americans knew that we have been fighting losing battles. These documents show just how bad it really is. The revelation that Pakistani intelligence is assisting the people we are bombing in Afghanistan shows the quality of friends we are making with our foreign policy. This kind of thing supports points that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and I tried to make on the House floor last week with a privileged resolution that would have directed the administration to remove troops from Pakistan pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.
We are not at war with Pakistan. Congress has made no declaration of war. (Actually, we made no declaration of war on Iraq or Afghanistan either, but that is another matter.) Yet we have troops in Pakistan engaging in hostile activities, conducting drone attacks and killing people. We sometimes manage to kill someone who has been identified as an enemy, yet we also kill about 10 civilians for every 1 of those.
Pakistani civilians are angered by this, yet their leadership is mollified by our billions in bribe money. We just passed an appropriations bill that will send another $7.5 billion to Pakistan. One wonders how much of this money will end up helping the Taliban. This whole operation is clearly counterproductive, inappropriate, immoral and every American who values the rule of law should be outraged. Yet these activities are being done so quietly that most Americans, as well as most members of the House, dont even know about them.
We should follow constitutional protocol when going to war. It is there for a reason. If we are legitimately attacked, it is the job of Congress to declare war. We then fight the war, win it and come home. War should be efficient, decisive and rare. However, when Congress shirks its duty and just gives the administration whatever it wants with no real oversight or meaningful debate, wars are never-ending, wasteful, and political. Our so-called wars have become a perpetual drain on our economy and liberty.
The founders knew that heads of state are far too eager to engage in military conflicts. That is why they entrusted the power to go to war with the deliberative body closest to the people the Congress. Decisions to go to war need to be supported by the people. War should not be covert or casual. We absolutely should not be paying off leaders of a country while killing their civilians without expecting to create a lot of new problems. This is not what America is supposed to be about.
Posted by Ron Paul (08-02-2010, 01:27 PM) filed under Foreign Policy
And now provide any evidence that any conflict we have been in with out a declaration of war was not properly approved of and paid for by Congress. Once again just because Congress has the power to declare a war does not mean that is all they can do. If that were the intent it would be worded that way.
You are aware we had one of our first conflicts with Barbary Pirates in North Africa, remind me, was there a declaration of war? Almost all the founders were still alive then. Perhaps you can find me a dissertation from some of them on how the Barbary Pirate conflict was mishandled because all Congress was allowed to do when faced with foreign aggression was declare war.
It is all the Constitution says they can do on the matter, and that's how it is worded. They're not given authority in the Constitution to do it any other way.
That the government didn't declare war on the Barbary Pirates in the early days of the republic isn't proof that it wasn't unconstitutional.
Wrong as usual. Congress is given the sole power to declare war, that much is true. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents Congress from authorizing and paying for lesser conflicts. Pretty simple concept. The requirement is that Congress approve of and vote to pay for any military activity, including conflicts short of a declaration of war. And that is what has happened in this Country since the day the Constitution became the law of the land.
It is all the Constitution says they can do on the matter, and that's how it is worded. They're not given authority in the Constitution to do it any other way.
That the government didn't declare war on the Barbary Pirates in the early days of the republic isn't proof that it wasn't unconstitutional.
Wrong as usual. Congress is given the sole power to declare war, that much is true. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents Congress from authorizing and paying for lesser conflicts. Pretty simple concept. The requirement is that Congress approve of and vote to pay for any military activity, including conflicts short of a declaration of war. And that is what has happened in this Country since the day the Constitution became the law of the land.
Except that the Constitution must list the powers of the government, not list the things the government is not allowed to do. Since the Constitution doesn't give any other way for the government to enter into a conflict, other than an official declaration of war by the legislature, that's the only way it can constitutionally be done.
