Ron Paul is right !!!!

[Unregistered]

Bhutto's body isnt cold yet, and the Ron Paul opposition already uses it as an excuse to bash Paul.

 

[DDude]

Will someone show me where the Constitution gives authority to any president to use military action to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations?

As far as I'm concerned the use of our military anywhere without a formal declaration of war being made by Congress is unconstitutional and those who allowed it and act upon it are violating the law. Caught in the middle are thousands of troops who unwittingly are violating their oath of enlistment by obeying the unlawful order since there never has been a Constitutional declaration of war. Instead of them shooting at Iraqi people they should be shooting their own officers and leaders in Washington.

That is why I got out of the military. I swore defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.

As a naturalized citizen I also swore to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. My oath of citizenship requires that I do this daily as a condition of my citizenship. The day I stop doing this is the day I have no right to be an American and I should return to my native country. Unlike a native born citizen who takes no oath to fight the Constitution's enemies, I take my oath seriously.

Any man or woman who violates the Constitution is my enemy. Sadly, that means many of my countrymen are my enemy as to many American's go along with our leaders. If you support Bush and this "war" on terrorism you support violating the Constitution. There was never a declaration of war by Congress. Until there is, this "war" is unconstitutional.

 

[nemoaz]

Ron Paul is still a kook. Cold or not. I hope this gets press because usually when his wacky blame the US foreign policy gets publicized, his numbers drop back to 0%.

 

[Molson]

Google Ron Paul and Bhutto.

That was the first thing i did prior to posting actually. If you would have actually read my post, i said that i found a video clip on CNN. one in which he doesn't blame America for Bhutto's assassination. the question he was answering wasn't on the video, the first part of his remarks were not on the video, and the last part of his comments were not on the video. but, why try to look for context when we can just continue to twist words in an effort to, yet again, smear the opposition. i really cant wait till the general election and stage2 starts complaining about the Hillary smear campaign we are destined for.

 

[STAGE 2]

That was the first thing i did prior to posting actually. If you would have actually read my post, i said that i found a video clip on CNN.

Then you need to watch the video on fox.

 

[STAGE 2]

As far as I'm concerned the use of our military anywhere without a formal declaration of war being made by Congress is unconstitutional and those who allowed it and act upon it are violating the law.

Well, its a good thing that you aren't the one interpreting the constitution. But I would like you to show me where the constitution talks about a "formal" declaration of war.

 

[Musketeer]

But I would like you to show me where the constitution talks about a "formal" declaration of war.

Section 8: The Congress shall have power

...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

They seem to have covered that pretty well. By the way, the 2 years in Iraq are up.

 

[Bruxley]

It surprises me often when people put up information that debunks their assertions and then says 'see there it is' as if it they aren't able to put the words together enough to understand them.

In this, we see the Declaration of War power of the Congress put up, obviously a cut and dry Congressional power. There was a CONGRESSIONAL authorization for the use of force in Iraq remember.

Then we see:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

And a statement that the 2 years in Iraq are up. You realize that EVERY session of Congress has been faced with appropriation of money for Operation Iraqi Freedom. No where near 2 years has passed between such appropriations.

We saw the words 'Declaration of War........no more then 2 years......' put out and then saw them misconstrued to be that there HASN'T been any authorization by Congress and that such an authorization has a 2 year expiration date. The very quote you put up debunks both and is oddly presented as proof of both.

Further, the wording "FORMAL" declaration was the challenge. The challenge hasn't been met by the post yet the phrase 'They seemed to have covered that pretty well' leads one to think the poster thinks that the challenge HAS been met.

Stage2's assertion that there is difficulty interpretting the Constitution is proving to be valid more by those he is challenging then by his own points.

Intellectual honesty please.

 

[Musketeer]

Bruxleys right. The FF obviously intended a standing army to be deployed to the other side of the globe for an indefinite amount of time and with no clear and obtainable objective.

I stand corrected.

Congress does need to stop appropriating all money for Iraq. I guess we are at war with Iraq, that then makes all those prisoners POWs, right? Or are we not at war this week? What was the definition of victory again?

 

[Musketeer]

So if Congress authorized the President to use force (i.e. DECLARED WAR) then they have the power to say stop and come home, right?

 

[Bruxley]

Are we changing the topic in lieu of intellectual honesty. Sarcasm in lieu of civil discourse and concession of a point?

The threads abound on Iraq, a fresh debating is welcome if you would like to open such a thread. But as we are now making very substantial and constant gains there the opponents tend to veer off the issue.

Stage 2 has made some challenges to your positions on THIS topic. I have furthered them by challenging your response.

Do you read the words 'FORMAL Declaration of War requirement. Is a floor vote not formal enough or do you read some majority requirements?

Do you still read your posted quote as a 2 year time limit on Iraq?

Is concession of a point too unpalatable for you to maintain credibility?

C'mon. This manic behavior is what the thread about Paul supporters/bashers changing opinions was referring to.

Intellectual honesty requires you let the information form the conclusion rather then trying to shape the information to support a pre-determined conclusion.

 

[Bruxley]

So if Congress authorized the President to use force (i.e. DECLARED WAR) then they have the power to say stop and come home, right?

It is fully within their power to force surrender by passing legislation that forbids any funds be used in that or any activity. They have absolute 'power of the purse'. In fact, if this was genuinely their conviction it would have already happened. So far the House hasn't gotten that mandate from their constituents, the people of their districts, nor have the member of the Senate from THEIR constituents, the States. Until that changes I don't see the Executive authority Congress has granted being undermined and in the face of success it wouldn't be good to legislate the defeat of your own military after you have sent them to war.

 

[divemedic]

Bruxleys right. The FF obviously intended a standing army to be deployed to the other side of the globe for an indefinite amount of time and with no clear and obtainable objective.

Let's use military actions that were begun by the FF's as a guide:

Congresss authorized a military action against France without a FORMAL declaration of war on July 9, 1798. That war ended with the convention of 1800 on September 30, 1800. what do you know, no FORMAL declaration and it was longer than 2 years. John Adams was the President.

The war of 1812 lasted for over 30 months. James Madison was the President.

The First Barbary war (1801-1805) lasted for 4 years, and was not FORMALLY declared. Thomas Jefferson was the President.

Any questions?

 

[Musketeer]

I concede that Congress agreed to this fiasco and gave the administration a "blank check" at the time. Certainly this is a hindsight is 20/20 issue and hopefully we have learned a thing or two from it.

I also agree that the gutless Democrats have not forced the financing issue as they were clearly put into office to do so. Hey, I even voted republican (not like I was going to vote for Hillary) but do admit the Dems won because the majority of people want to see us leaving Iraq.

The "Formal" declaration of war is simply that it is up to Congress to declare it. War is not clearly defined though since we are parsing phrases here. "Formal" is simply the act of Congress doing so with an official vote.

 

[DDude]

Well, its a good thing that you aren't the one interpreting the constitution. But I would like you to show me where the constitution talks about a "formal" declaration of war.

Are you asserting because I'm just a commoner that the simple, easy to read language of the Constitution is above me? Funny how so many 2A supporters constantly contend that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is so simple to understand that a child could comprehend what the founders meant, but that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 is beyond a simple guy's understanding.

And I'm thoroughly baffled why people think the US is entitled to tell sovereign nations what they can or can not do. When you put your nose in other people's business don't be surprised if they begin resenting you. For too long the money intersts of this nation have pushed our government into abandoning doing what is right according to the Constitution in favor of doing what benefits them. The result is that some people around the world take exception to the US government pushing on them just like we who support the 2A resent our government's pushing.

As an American who is also a naturalized citizen I know firsthand of how those who live outside of the the US feel. I suppose until you've lived it yourself you'll never really understand it. But then again, it's because of that attitude that American's are looked upon as an arrogant people. But then again I've been told often enough if you don't love America, leave America. But because I do love this nation and made the choice to become an American, that doesn't mean I won't do my duty and uphold the oath of citizenship that I took to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies. Of course we're all too worried about "them" that we don't worry about ourselves.

Oh well, at least I have my blog where I don't have to butt heads with Americans who think that government is the solution to all the problems mankind faces.

 

[kjm]

Off Topic, but certainly Congress Authorized the President to do two things: Change the Regime in Iraq: Done December 2004 IIRC
Bring Iraq into compliance with all UN Resolutions regarding WMD: Done.

OK- so there's the authorization. Both have been accomplished a long time ago. So we either need to reauthorize, or GTH out.

On Ron Paul's policy towards foriegn aid- I agree 100%. We need to have a swift cease to all foriegn aid ASAP. How much foriegn aid did S. Hussein get from us? How much did the Taliban get? How much do the Mexicans get? How much do even the rich countries get? Why?

Sometimes he says things that leave me puzzled. Like going to the gold standard. I wonder why we would do that, but when he actually has time to explain it, I am impressed. You can have two competing currencies. One is based in Gold, and one is based on the full faith and credit of the Federal Reserve (which is not government but a cartel of banks). You pick which one you would like to place your retirement into.

I'm all about choice. So long as it doesn't end anybody's life, choice is a wonderful thing!

So we've given Pakistan a lot of money. That money had strings, and paid off a lot of folks. Their loyalty to us is based on payments. That's a bad situation. It seems that many countries around the world either are our allies because we pay them to be, or because they fear our reprisals. It seems that that isn't the kind of friends we would desire.

 

[Pat H]

I concede that Congress agreed to this fiasco and gave the administration a "blank check" at the time. Certainly this is a hindsight is 20/20 issue and hopefully we have learned a thing or two from it.

I also agree that the gutless Democrats have not forced the financing issue as they were clearly put into office to do so. Hey, I even voted republican (not like I was going to vote for Hillary) but do admit the Dems won because the majority of people want to see us leaving Iraq.

The "Formal" declaration of war is simply that it is up to Congress to declare it. War is not clearly defined though since we are parsing phrases here. "Formal" is simply the act of Congress doing so with an official vote.

Congressman Paul proposed a "Declaration of War" bill to the House, it was rejected. Therefore, there was no legitimate declaration of war.

Further, and this has been gone over many times in this forum, it's has been established that Congress was bound by ratified treaty from a declaration of war against Iraq. Not so with Afghanistan.

 

[Musketeer]

Congressman Paul proposed a "Declaration of War" bill to the House, it was rejected. Therefore, there was no legitimate declaration of war.

That's impossible because as all the anti-Pauls here will tell you he refuses to take any action outside the USA....

 

[Bruxley]

Congressman Paul proposed a "Declaration of War" bill to the House, it was rejected. Therefore, there was no legitimate declaration of war.

There it is again, if Paul's method is rejected then any other is invalid. Unimpressive. His ability to get his bills passed goes more to lack of leadership ability with the House of Representatives then it does toward the legitimacy of other legislation or Congressional acts.

The terms of the Gulf war cease fire were not met, cease fire discontinued. Truth is Saddam himself propagated the belief he was continuing the WMD programs and it bit him.

The requirement of intellectual honesty to have the information form the conclusion rather then shaping information to fit a pre-determined conclusion has again been ignored.

Paul's way or it's illegitamate.....please. This is a man consistent too his principles but it's a mighty strenuous reach to base the legitimacy of an act of Congress on whether it was done by Paul's introduction. Such a reach is evidence of a condition with delusions of grandeur as a symptom.

 

[Bruxley]

Interesting point Muskateer. Why propose a "Declaration of War" bill if the war itself was so contray to what he now states his position is on the issue?

What are the odds that question goes unanswered?