Rand Paul says war illegal

[FA_Q2]

He is right.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand that means he is one of the people that totally dropped the ball then. Interesting that it is Obama's fault that congress didn't even bother to cast a vote for military action.
They don't have to wait for the president to ask - they are big boys and girls capable of doing their damn jobs without asking permission.

 

[JimH52]

He is right.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand that means he is one of the people that totally dropped the ball then. Interesting that it is Obama's fault that congress didn't even bother to cast a vote for military action.
They don't have to wait for the president to ask - they are big boys and girls capable of doing their damn jobs without asking permission.

Politics.....My Friend....Politics

 

[Moonglow]

Didn't all of the Democrats in congress also go on vacation? .....

why not?

 

[Contumacious]

Rand Paul ISIS war is illegal - CNN.com

Congress could have authorized the action BEFORE the election....but we all know what they didn't.

The War Powers Resolution Fraud

By Thomas E. Woods Jr.

February 4, 2006

In the wake of the Vietnam War Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973. As the history books would have it, Congress thereby restrained presidential war powers and reasserted traditional congressional prerogatives in foreign policy as envisioned by the Constitution.

Not so. Not even close to being so.

Congress did pass the War Powers Resolution, to be sure. But if anything, the Resolution — sympathetic mythology to the contrary notwithstanding — actually emboldened the president and codified executive warmaking powers that would have astonished the framers of the Constitution.

Repeal of the War Powers Resolution would eliminate the concession of 1973 that presidents may use military force anywhere in the world, for whatever reason, for up to ninety days, if not longer. There is no constitutional warrant for that proposition. Repeal would remove that source of presidential power and put an end to fruitless legislative debate over whether presidential "consultation" had been sufficient, whether presidential reports were timely and complete, and whether the president should have reported under Section 4(a)(1), 4(a)(2), or some other provision. Repeal would eliminate the current futile dash to federal court, hoping for some kind of judicial answer. Members of Congress would understand that only legislative action can stop the president: withholding funds, prohibiting certain actions, and taking other concrete measures.

 

[paulitician]

Rand Paul is Spot On. All Wars should be fully debated in Congress. And if War is decided on, an official Declaration of War should follow. The Constitution is the road map. Now we just need our Politicians to get back to following it.

 

[Cassandro]

"Taking military action against ISIS is justified. The president acting without Congress is not," he wrote, reiterating a stance he's held since September. This fall Paul has described the airstrikes in Syria as appropriate action but said Obama's method for doing so was "unconstitutional."

What a chicken shit weasel he really is.

Its not unconstitutional and if they had been willing to do their frikken job instead of going on vacation - well, as Jim said, we all know why they didn't.

So, will they do their job now? Or will they do what they said they would do - force the president to do it for them so they could lie about it later.

We all know the answer to that too.

SSDD from the pubs.

...So says a chicken hawk weasel: Aerial bombing is OK because it's so sanitary.

So get your helmet and join up Chief! Too old? Maybe they can put you behind a desk in Baghdad?

Take your meds and reread my post. What in the hell are you talking about?

 

[FA_Q2]

Rand Paul ISIS war is illegal - CNN.com

Congress could have authorized the action BEFORE the election....but we all know what they didn't.

The War Powers Resolution Fraud

By Thomas E. Woods Jr.

February 4, 2006

In the wake of the Vietnam War Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973. As the history books would have it, Congress thereby restrained presidential war powers and reasserted traditional congressional prerogatives in foreign policy as envisioned by the Constitution.

Not so. Not even close to being so.

Congress did pass the War Powers Resolution, to be sure. But if anything, the Resolution — sympathetic mythology to the contrary notwithstanding — actually emboldened the president and codified executive warmaking powers that would have astonished the framers of the Constitution.

Repeal of the War Powers Resolution would eliminate the concession of 1973 that presidents may use military force anywhere in the world, for whatever reason, for up to ninety days, if not longer. There is no constitutional warrant for that proposition. Repeal would remove that source of presidential power and put an end to fruitless legislative debate over whether presidential "consultation" had been sufficient, whether presidential reports were timely and complete, and whether the president should have reported under Section 4(a)(1), 4(a)(2), or some other provision. Repeal would eliminate the current futile dash to federal court, hoping for some kind of judicial answer. Members of Congress would understand that only legislative action can stop the president: withholding funds, prohibiting certain actions, and taking other concrete measures.

The real problem is that repeal would also mean that congress members would need to actually cast a vote (and thereby take responsibility in their next election) for military actions. Of course they would rather be against it after they were for it after they were against it. The one constant thing that congress does seem to hold to is that they would rather have a dictator in office making all the decisions so they can simply get paid to be congress critters without responsibility. So much legislative power has been transferred to the executive branch it really isn't even funny. The sad part is the right continually laments it when they complain about Obama's 'pen' yet I have not seen a single measure to change that reality.

 

[Contumacious]

[


The real problem is that repeal would also mean that congress members would need to actually cast a vote (and thereby take responsibility in their next election) for military actions. Of course they would rather be against it after they were for it after they were against it. The one constant thing that congress does seem to hold to is that they would rather have a dictator in office making all the decisions so they can simply get paid to be congress critters without responsibility. So much legislative power has been transferred to the executive branch it really isn't even funny. The sad part is the right continually laments it when they complain about Obama's 'pen' yet I have not seen a single measure to change that reality.

James Madison knew that kings became tyrants through war. He fervently believed that by keeping the war-waging power in the hands of the president and the war-making power in the hands of Congress, the Constitution would serve as a bulwark against tyranny. He explained:

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”