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

[otto105]

Wrong. Paul’s commentary isn’t “theater;” its substantive. His concerns are absolutely NOT covered in the treaty. Your statement is bullshit.

As I pointed-out, earlier, the full Senate failed to make note of its reservations. They apparently relied, instead, of the Foreign Affairs Committee report recommending consent. That in turn was evidently based on Secretary Acheson’s assurances.

As a matter of best practices, it would have been preferable to be explicit. But for reasons of international politics, the Administrarion preferred that the Senate dispense with its “reservations.” Too bad.

The treaty does oblige us up to a point. But you’re flatly wrong if you imagine that Congress would not need to declare war to put our treaty obligations into effect.

I have stated clearly that the treaty obligates our congressional action.

You want to play games with that obligation because the former 1-term president wanted to weaken NATO for putin.

 

[otto105]

You could have said, "I don't understand the issue, can someone explain it to me?"

Sure frank, playing at the edges again.

What does the ring say about your views?

 

[BackAgain]

I have stated clearly that the treaty obligates our congressional action.

And you’re wrong. The treaty (under some circumstances) would call on us and all member nations to defend the member nation attacked. But to the extent that it seems to call for war, no treaty can obligate Congress to declare war. That is entirely the choice of the sovereign. Under our Constitution, whether you like or it accept it or not, such a declaration must come from Congress.

You want to play games with that obligation because the former 1-term president wanted to weaken NATO for putin.

And I want to insure that we don’t even pay lil service to anything that undermines our Constitutional form of governing ourselves.

Trump, by the way, is the one who strengthened NATO. And he sure as hell didn’t do anything of the sort “for” Putin.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think that you should actually read the Treaty first and then ask why rand paul does theater instead of his job.

Then, what's the problem with the Senate confirming that Congress still has an obligation to declare war (something Congress has not done since.......).

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I have stated clearly that the treaty obligates our congressional action.

And by "act" you mean Congress must actually vote to declare war, right? Not some bullshit "police action" or other nonsense, RIGHT?????

You want to play games with that obligation because the former 1-term president wanted to weaken NATO for putin.

This does not even warrant a response.

 

[evenflow1969]

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

Lol, the requirements for congress to declare war has never gone away. It has been skirted by calling our recent wars policing actions. The senate does not want to change this because war is profitable for their money doners and necessary at times. By leaving this decision to the president and joint chiefs they get their wars with our being held responsible for them.

 

[Oddball]

That agreement obligates us to an action. If you want to pick and chose it will render all of our commitments meaningless.

The original agreement is the Constitution, Bushbot.

You're the one who wants to pick and choose which commitment to follow.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

How is reaffirming current constitutionality an amendment?

 

[iceberg]

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.

You just need to doosh into everything, dont you?

 

[otto105]

And you’re wrong. The treaty (under some circumstances) would call on us and all member nations to defend the member nation attacked. But to the extent that it seems to call for war, no treaty can obligate Congress to declare war. That is entirely the choice of the sovereign. Under our Constitution, whether you like or it accept it or not, such a declaration must come from Congress.

And I want to insure that we don’t even pay lil service to anything that undermines our Constitutional form of governing ourselves.

Trump, by the way, is the one who strengthened NATO. And he sure as hell didn’t do anything of the sort “for” Putin.

Dude, the former 1-term president tried to declare himself president against the vote of the people.


He didn’t strengthen NATO he railed for money so America could back slowly out.

 

[otto105]

How is reaffirming current constitutionality an amendment?

It’s a side show.

And you paid full price for the ticket.

 

[BackAgain]

Dude, the former 1-term president tried to declare himself president against the vote of the people.

Dud. No. He didn’t. Repeating your simpleton belief simply still doesn’t make it true.

He didn’t strengthen NATO he railed for money so America could back slowly out.

He obviously did strengthen NATO when he called out all the weak sisters for not even trying to bear their fair share of the costs. And his motive? Feel completely obligated to back up your claim. (don’t worry; nobody really expects you to support your baseless crap.)