Rand Paul: ‘Senate Just Rejected My Attempt To Reaffirm The Constitution’

[Natural Citizen]

Basically, Rand's amendment serve to reaffirm the Constitution with regard to declarations of war and that NATO lacks the authority to supercede the US Congress.

The constitution is clear on such matters.

Paul proposed an amendment which would emphasise that only the U.S. Congress has the authority to declare war under the Constitution.

Paul's amendment, predictably, was immediately rejected by the committee.


Anyway. The Senators dialogue comes after the U.S. Senate committee backed the accession of Finland, Sweden to NATO.

U.S. Senate committee backs accession of Finland, Sweden to NATO

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday backed Finland and Sweden's accession to NATO, paving the way for the full Senate to vote on the most significant expansion of the 30-member alliance since the 1990s.

www.reuters.com

 

[Natural Citizen]

 

[mamooth]

Congress approved US NATO membership.

That means Congress does not have to keep reapproving what they've already approved.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Congress approved US NATO membership.

That means Congress does not have to keep reapproving what they've already approved.

To repeat...

"NATO obligations don’t supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war."

 

[otto105]

To repeat...

"NATO obligations don’t supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war."

Our commitment to NATO does. Does randi paul want the US to withdraw from NATO?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Our commitment to NATO does.

No, it doesn't.

Who told you that? Where did you learn this?

Does randi paul want the US to withdraw from NATO?

As was clearly stated, Senator Paul's amendment (which, again, was immediately rejected by the Senate) served to reaffirm the role of government with regard to declaring US involvement in war, as outlined in the Constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

The Constitution does not suggest or say that Congress can delegate its own authority to declare war.

I don’t always agree with Rand Paul, but it isn’t unreasonable to give due and full consideration to what he was suggesting.

In this instance, I don’t see how he’s wrong, at all.

 

[otto105]

No, it doesn't.

Who told you that? Where did you learn this?



As was clearly stated, Senator Paul's amendment (which, again, was immediately rejected by the Senate) served to reaffirm the role of government with regard to declarations of war, outlined in the Constitution.

Did Congress approve our membership in NATO?

Does the NATO commitment not state common defense of member nations?

Does randi want us to withdrawal from our NATO commitment?

 

[otto105]

The Constitution does not suggest or say that Congress can delegate its own authority to declare war.

I don’t always agree with Rand Paul, but it isn’t unreasonable to give due and full consideration to what he was suggesting.

In this instance, I don’t see how he’s wrong, at all.

Did Congress vote to approve our NATO commitment?

 

[BackAgain]

Did Congress vote to approve our NATO commitment?

And you imagine that the vote to be part of the NATO treaty nations translates into forfeiting the Congressional responsibility to declare war, odd0?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Did Congress approve our membership in NATO?

Does the NATO commitment not state common defense of member nations?

Does randi want us to withdrawal from our NATO commitment?

Okay. I'll try this the country simple way.

I said that "NATO obligations don’t supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war."

Which they do not.


You responded by contending that ''Our commitment to NATO does'' supersede the Constitution.

Which is patently incorrect.


I responded by asking who told you that. I asked you where you learned that.


You ignored the question, predictably, and started spinning like a top.


So...are you going to answer my question or not? This is how functional debate works.

I've provided support for my contention. (that the Constitution is clear with regard to such matters.)


Please provide support for your claim that a NATO treaty supersedes our Constitution in matters that declare US involvement in foreign wars.)

That's what "Where did you learn that?" means.

That's what "Who told you that?" means.



We can move forward to your NATO dialogue after you answer my question.

I'll wait.

Thanks!

 

[otto105]

And you imagine that the vote to be part of the NATO treaty nations translates into forfeiting the Congressional responsibility to declare war, odd0?

You want the US to not back it's commitments?

The paul trick is just a conservative playing a wedge issue for pootin and not being serious. His colleagues clearly saw thru that and treated it as the BS it was.

 

[otto105]

Okay. I'll try this the country simple way.

I said that "NATO obligations don’t supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war."

Which they do not.


You responded by contending that ''Our commitment to NATO does.''

Which is patently incorrect.


I responded by asking who told you that. I asked you where you learned that.

You ignored the question, predictably, and started spinning like a top.


So...are you going to answer my question or not? This is how functional debate works.

I've provided support for my contention. (the Constitution is clear with regard to such matters.)

Please provide support for your claim that a NATO treaty overrides our Constitution in matters that declare US involvement in foreign wars.)

That's what "Where did you learn that?" means.

That's what "Who told you that?" means.


We can move forward to your NATO dialogue after you answer my question.

I'll wait.

Thanks!

Does our commitment to NATO not make congressional action a mandate?

Is your contention that a conservative congress can pick and choose which US commitments it wants to reinforce at whim?

Or do you support Putin and his aggression against NATO?

 

[BackAgain]

You want the US to not back it's commitments?

The paul trick is just a conservative playing a wedge issue for pootin and not being serious. His colleagues clearly saw thru that and treated it as the BS it was.

I “want” the Constitution to be adhered to.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Does our commitment to NATO not make congressional action a mandate?

Is your contention that a conservative congress can pick and choose which US commitments it wants to reinforce at whim?

Or do you support Putin and his aggression against NATO?

Okay. So, you're not interested in functional debate, then? You're not going to support your claim that a NATO treaty supersedes the US Constitution with regard to declarations involving the US in foreign war?

You're just gonna make a claim like that and skip over attempts at functional debate, you're just going to ignore any expectation that you provide support for your claim, and move on to what you want the topical content to be instead?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our commitment to NATO does. Does randi paul want the US to withdraw from NATO?

You're missing the point.

NATO obligations may require us to help our allies, but the US Congress STILL has a superseding obligation to declare war. You get the difference, right?

 

[otto105]

I “want” the Constitution to be adhered to.

Then you can advocate for a withdrawal from NATO.

 

[Oddball]

You want the US to not back it's commitments?

The paul trick is just a conservative playing a wedge issue for pootin and not being serious. His colleagues clearly saw thru that and treated it as the BS it was.

The fucking stoopit is strong in this one.

You sure you name isn't Cheney?

 

[otto105]

You're missing the point.

NATO obligations may require us to help our allies, but the US Congress STILL has a superseding obligation to declare war. You get the difference, right?

I don't see your difference. We commitment to a NATO common defense. That obligates congress to that action.

If you want to withdraw from NATO so we can adhere to our constitution you defend Putin.

 

[Oddball]

Then you can advocate for a withdrawal from NATO.

NATO is not, nor does it supersede, congressional authority, nor does it usurp U.S. sovereignty.