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

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Are NATO countries obligated to protect each other?


The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO's founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

...which still requires congress to declare war....

 

[Meister]

We (congress) entered into the agreement and for all it stands for.

Let me say this as kindly as I can. You're wrong with NATO superseding our Constitution.
That is all.

 

[BackAgain]

And on 1/6/2021 it was....

Congress approved the NATO Treaty and it obligates us to an action. If you want to support Putin, then come clean and say you want the US out of NATO.

Methinks you are a bit misinformed.

In its report on the Treaty, the Committee made five main points: (1) approval would not commit the Senate to approving the military assistance program; (2) the Treaty would not abridge the Constitutional powers of the Congress to declare war; (3) Treaty approval would not imply the Senate's "support, approval or disapproval of other pact nations' colonial policies; (4) Spain's admission to NATO depended on the approval of all pact nations; and, (5) Germany was protected by the Treaty only to the degree that the pact covered attack on U.S. armed forces stationed there.

— https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/19971208_97-1041_464c8034c93f87a58bd9be3989734f33c59bca6d.pdf

Note, however, that the foreign relations committee report to the full Senate on the original resolution proposing and recommending consent to the treaty is not (and I’m trying to be clear that it is not) the same thing as any formal Senate “reservations” about the treaty. Back in July, 1949, other Senators had apparently the very same concerns expressed, again now, by Sen. Paul. So, although the ratification failed to include explicit reservations, there was an understanding about those concerns expressed by the foreign relations committee report (back then) to the full Senate.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We (congress) entered into the agreement and for all it stands for.

You're making the argument that Congress abdicated its Constitutional authority to declare war to the whims of NATO? Is that your argument?

 

[BackAgain]

Let me say this as kindly as I can. You're wrong with NATO superseding our Constitution.
That is all.

Agreed. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/19971208_97-1041_464c8034c93f87a58bd9be3989734f33c59bca6d.pdf

 

[otto105]

...which still requires congress to declare war....

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

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

We (congress) entered into the agreement and for all it stands for.

Says the anti American...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ah well. I have work to do.

Not many statesmen left, are there?

It's a heck of a thing.

We need more people like Paul and Massie and people like them, who not only uphold their oaths and take it seriously, but seem to understand the document they swore to uphold and protect on behalf of their constituents and for the sake of peace and prosperity for the country.

The NATO functions have only succeeded in achieving the precise opposite of peace or prosperity for our country.

 

[otto105]

Methinks you are a bit misinformed.


— https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/19971208_97-1041_464c8034c93f87a58bd9be3989734f33c59bca6d.pdf

Note, however, that the foreign relations committee report to the full Senate on the original resolution proposing and recommending consent to the treaty is not (and I’m trying to be clear that it is not) the same thing as any formal Senate “reservations” about the treaty. Back in July, 1949, other Senators had apparently the very same concerns expressed, again now, by Sen. Paul. So, although the ratification failed to include explicit reservations, there was an understanding about those concerns expressed by the foreign relations committee report (back then) to the full Senate.

Finally someone actually read the treaty.

Now why is rand paul doing theater instead of his job?

 

[BackAgain]

Then you can advocate for a withdrawal from NATO.

Not required. The original committee report to the Senate seems to have allayed the concern a bit.

 

[otto105]

Ah well. I have work to do.

Not many statesmen left, are there?

It's a heck of a thing.

We need more people like Paul and Massie and people like them, who not only uphold their oaths and take it seriously, but seem to understand the document they swore to uphold on behalf of their constituents.

paul is a libertarian nut job and massie is a fascist.

 

[BackAgain]

Finally someone actually read the treaty.

Have you?

Now why is rand paul doing theater instead of his job?

He isn’t. He is simply trying to clarify the very point that some of his predecessors tried to address back in 1949. That is kind of his job.

 

[BackAgain]

paul is a libertarian nut job and massie is a fascist.

Of course neither of those claims is true.

 

[otto105]

Have you?

He isn’t. He is simply trying to clarify the very point that some of his predecessors tried to address back in 1949. That is kind of his job.

It's just theater, a non-starter or a wedge issue for Putin.

 

[BackAgain]

It's just theater, a non-starter or a wedge issue for Putin.

Thanks for sharing your ongoing baseless opinion.

In reality, of course, Rand Paul is spot on, here. Too bad other Senators aren’t up to the task of being equally committed to the Constitution.

 

[otto105]

Thanks for sharing your ongoing baseless opinion.

In reality, of course, Rand Paul is spot on, here. Too bad other Senators aren’t up to the task of being equally committed to the Constitution.

Paul's little bit of theater is already covered in the treaty.

As is our obligation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Tree of Liberty

 

[BackAgain]

Paul's little bit of theater is already covered in the treaty.

As is our obligation.

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.

 

[otto105]

Tree of Liberty

Kabuki theater from an actor.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Congress approved US NATO membership.

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

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