Ron Paul and the declaration of war

myself | December 25 , 2011 | self

[FloridaGeezer]

From what I've read Mr. Paul would obtain the approval of Congress before sending any troops to fight a war on behalf of the United Nations. I have not heard any of the other candidates make such a promise. We should not be sending our troops to Yugoslavia or Libya because the United Nations has decided that it wants to get rid of a dictator.

I'm not too happy with his position of never engaging with foreign countries although I think that that may be an overstatement. The other candidates should make their positions clear on this otherwise I will have to vote for Ron Paul.

[stratplayer]

Your not alone despite how it may seem here. There are a lot of overstatements about Ron Paul. People from the right and here on FR attack him unmercifully. Disagree with him is fine, but it gets nasty. I have not been a Paul supporter this election or the last. Last time I like Fred Thompson, this time Herman Cain. Neither worked out for me. I tend to like non establishment types and those that don’t flip flop. I’m without a candidate at the moment and unlike many would consider Ron Paul. Of coarse I am one of those that voted for Ross Perot and get blamed for Clinton.

[mnehring]

Paul was right in his vote for the authorization to use force in Afghanistan. Where he is wrong is both his inconsistency in the same application to Iraq as well as later claiming Afghanistan was unconstitutional. He has been all over the map with Afghanistan. He originally issued a statement similar to his ‘war drums’ statement on Iran saying we only wanted to go into Afghanistan was for an oil pipeline, then he voted for it, then he constantly spoke out against it.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Well put.

I do agree with him when he says we should go in, fight to win then get out....that's about all I agree with him on in Foreign Policy.

My only problem with these wars has been the suicidal ROE and politically correct nonsense.

Not to mention the traitors in the democrap party disparaging our Honorable Men and Women fighting it.

[rbmillerjr]

“Ron Paul is for the Constitution..
Others are kinda sorta for the Constitution..”

I don’t think Ron Paul really understands the Constitution very well.

[Las Vegas Ron]

LOL!

Massive shrinkage occurring just looking at that!

[Captain7seas]

“I don’t think Ron Paul really understands the Constitution very well”.

LOL, just as he does not really understand the FED either.

Goofy ‘ol crackpot.

[Grut]

and he also believes iran should have nuclear weapons. So if he gets elected with your help and bethlehem gets nuked, I’m holding you accountable. Cool?

In muted defense of Paul, a right of third-world countries to acquire nukes is something that Curtis LeMay also supported: he thought that the whole anti-proliferation thing was based on the idea that small countries are less responsible than large ones, something he saw no evidence for.

Of course, LeMay wrote that in the late '60s.

[hosepipe]

[ I don’t think Ron Paul really understands the Constitution very well. ]

Who does?... Many Supreme Counts Judges don’t have a clue...

[rmlew]

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that your old age prevented from reading Congresswoman Bachmann’s site or statements. Otherwise, you’d be a liar and partisan propagandist.

[Darksheare]

And he supports homosexual marriage, homosexuals openly serving in that same military, etc etc.

[marron]

From what I've read Mr. Paul would obtain the approval of Congress before sending any troops to fight a war on behalf of the United Nations. I have not heard any of the other candidates make such a promise.

Aside from the current president, who has sent troops to fight on behalf of the United Nations without congressional approval?

[Scoutmaster]

And he supports homosexual marriage, homosexuals openly serving in that same military

Really? I thought he "missed the closet."

That is, when he's not talking about legalizing drugs and claiming a government disinformation campaign about crack cocaine:

And of course, he would never advise militias about how to select members just before offering financial advice:

And those racial comments he told the Houston Chronicle were simple based on studies. Of course. All of that racial stuff in his newsletters was simply based on sound sociology studies, after talking about the New World Order. None of it can be used as soundbites against him.

Merry Christmas to All! And damn those Trilaterlists!

But they'll never tie those newsletters to him, first of all, he had no involvement with promoting them.

And they don't even look like he had a thing to do with them over a period of two decades.

Vote Ron Paul! Because the orderlies haven't fastened the leather straps yet!

[central_va]

Good post. The only one that seems to be really loony to me is the one on Marion Barry. That one is a bit over the top. IMO The others are extreme but not radical. Libertarians are like that. Your milage may vary. All of these could have been posts made by “mainstream Freepers”.

[WhiskeyX]

See how many of the people you supported or may support in the future have sympathies and/or relationships with the Globalist and One Government political movements and organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Trilateral Commission (TC), Bilderberg group, Bohemians, Rockefellar Foundation, and so forth. Try to find former and current candidates who do not.

[fortheDeclaration]

Ron Paul never said he would ask for a declaration of war in order for the US to fight for the UN!

Ron Paul is against the UN and believes wars should be declared when they are in the US interest.

[fortheDeclaration]

What?

Every treaty allows a nation the right to self-defense, even the UN charter.

[WhiskeyX]

Yes, the right to self-defense is an unalienable right and duty of any sovereign. That is the whole point of why a declaration of war has fallen into disuse. It works like this.

In earlier times, under the laws and customs of armed conflict, a sovereign was the only party who could lawfully decide when to engage in a state of war against another sovereign. Among the Republican Romans and Imperial Romans, there was a ceremony involved with the decision which entailed notice being given to the enemy by the tossing of a spear into enemy territory. Roman officers who engaged in war against an enemy with whom a truce existed or without the authority of the Roman Senate was surrendered to the enemy for justice and punishment upon complaint from the enemy.

Conversely, the Roman Senate refused to punish a captive Roman officer who made treaty with enemy pirates for ransom in exchange for liberty and then abrogated the treaty under the theory any person could lawfully make war upon and punish pirates and bandits outside the protection of the law, i.e. outlaws.

The lawful authority for a sovereign to engage in a state of war against another sovereign continued into the early 20th Century. A declaration of war was the formal document used to acknowledge the existence of a state of war, especially in those instances where acts of war were committed and remained ongoing even while the formal declaration of war acknowledging the informal state of affairs was under debated, finalized, and presented to the belligerent sovereign. The cessation of diplomatic relations establishes a state of belligerency, while the declaration of war acknowledges the hostilities underway constitute a formal state of war under which certain other formal relationships may change between the belligerents and neutral sovereigns.

Kaiser Wilhelm of Imperial Germany utilized his authority as sovereign of Germany to plan a number of wars for Imperial conquest. Several plans he ordered to be prepared included the German invasion of limited regions of the United States as revenge for interfering with German Imperial military operations elsewhere in the world. When these plans failed to be implemented for a variety of reasons, he undertook plans to start a war in Europe, which resulted in the First World War. Afterward, many authorities clamored to bring Kaiser Wilhelm to justice for his role in causing and engaging in the war. When the efforts to prosecute the Kaiser failed, his accusers set out to use the new League of Nations as the means of outlawing the right of a sovereign to engage in a war of conquest. The only right to engage in war would be the right to fight in war to defend against an offensive act of war. This goal was achieved with a new treaty.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact for the first time in history denied the signatory sovereigns the right as a sovereign to unilaterally breach the peace and engage in aggressive war. Some sovereigns, however, defied their treaty obligations by falsely claiming their acts of war were the permitted defensive acts of war. In response to the breaches of the Pact and attempted circumventions, the Stimson Doctrine of the League of Nations and the Budapest Articles of Interpretation adopted in 1934 made it a requirement for sovereigns to employ nonrecognition of the aggressions and the right and obligation of member sovereigns to preserve their own neutrality while aiding sovereigns engaged in defensive war against an sovereign/s engaged in aggressive war.

The aggressors soon withdrew from the League of Nations and repudiated their treaty obligations mandating a refrain from aggressive war. The aggressions continued until the sovereigns engaged in collective defensive war found it necessary to issue declarations of war in response to the ongoing hostilities by the aggressors. The Second World War brought about the dissolution of the League of Nations, which lacked the powers needed to engage thee defensive war required to deter and defeat sovereigns engaging in aggressive war. In the place of the league of Nations, the United Nations engaged in their defensive war against the aggressors established their new organization. This organization was initially founded with the authority for the members to engage in defensive peacekeeping operations to deter acts of war and defensive war to force a halt to wars of aggression.

Since the Kellogg-Briand treaty remained in effect to outlaw wars of aggression, the United Nations established a Security Council to enforce the peace and use defensive war to enforce its decisions. The Charter outlawed war except in self-defense and collective self-defense against an aggressor. It is this development in international law of armed conflict which brought into question the legality or illegality of a declaration of war.

In the past, a declaration of war was used by the aggressor and/or the defender to formalize a state of war. After the Kelloggg-Briand Pact and the pacts and treaties leading to the UN and the Security Council outlawed aggressive war, the defender could act in self-defense with or without the approval of the Security Council, while the aggressor could not use a declaration of war to engage in an illegal aggressive war. This situation left the declaration of war in a state of limbo. Since the defender did not need a declaration of war to authorize its state of war, and the sovereign issuing a state of war could in some circumstances appear to be declaring an aggressive state of war, rather than a defensive state of war. Consequently, the declaration of war fell into disuse to avoid the appearance of being the aggressor in violation of international law.

The U.S. Constitution, having been adopted in 1787, contemplated the use of a declaration of war when it was deemed necessary for the Congress to formally initiate a state of war against an enemy belligerent or formally recognize a state of war against an enemy already engaged in hostile aggressions. While the President of the United States has always had the Constitutional authority to act as the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, conduct foreign affairs, repel invasions, and conduct certain other military affairs without prior approval of Congress, the right to declare war and thereby initiate a belligerency not already existing was reserved to Congress. The exact circumstances in which these facts operate remain highly controversial and debatable. The circumstance in which the Congress may elect to authorize a war of aggression in violation of the current laws of armed conflict is beyond debate and flatly illegal. This is why you often hear it said that a declaration of war is obsolete and illegal. While it may not be altogether illegal, there is a general perception that lawful defensive wars require no declaration of war, while a declaration of war may be regarded rightly or wrongly as an illegal exercise of aggressive war. The right of sovereigns to engage in collective self-defense against an aggressor engaged in acts of war against any one or more members of the collective sovereigns is guaranteed by the Kellogg-Briand Pact and all subsequent treaties up to the United Nations Security Council. NATO is one of those sovereign collective defense organizations intended by the international laws, and the United States acted against Libya as a member of NATO. Since the Libyan operations did not require the President to repel and invasion or similar act contemplated by the Founding Fathers, it is unclear the extent to which the NATO treaty obligations approved by Congress may be regarded as pre-authorization for hostile acts against Libya without further approval of Congress beyond the authority of Congress' war Powers Act. This is an area which remains in controversy, so the Constitutional legality of using a declaration of war when waging defensive war unilaterally or collectively is in question.

[fortheDeclaration]

While the President of the United States has always had the Constitutional authority to act as the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, conduct foreign affairs, repel invasions, and conduct certain other military affairs without prior approval of Congress, the right to declare war and thereby initiate a belligerency not already existing was reserved to Congress. The exact circumstances in which these facts operate remain highly controversial and debatable. The circumstance in which the Congress may elect to authorize a war of aggression in violation of the current laws of armed conflict is beyond debate and flatly illegal.

So we are agreed that Congress can declare war-period.

The US has had a number of wars which might well be considered 'agressive' but that is for the American People to decide, hence the right of Congress (the part of government closest to the People), to do so and to face the judgment of the American People when they do so.

What is illegal is the Executive branch acting without any concern of what Congress says.

[Sherman Logan]

Congress authorized the President to use all necessary force to defend American interests in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is the functional equivalent of a Declaration of War.

The Constitution does not prescribe a specific formula be used in a declaration.

In any case, a majority of Congress can always defund any military operation the President engages in of which they disapprove.

The US military has been involved in well over a hundred (depending on which you count) operations in its history that involved extended combat. I believe exactly five of those involved a formal Declaration of War by Congress. No Declaration of War was involved, by either side, in our most deadly conflict, the Civil War.

Methinks this whole notion that military force cannot be used without a formal congressional Declaration of War is just plain silly. With the US as dominant as it is militarily, no State in its right mind would put itself into a position where such a declaration would be reasonable.

OTOH, I believe we should have the right to declare formal war on NGOs such as al Quaeda and attack them and their supporters wherever found.

[WhiskeyX]

To: WhiskeyX

While the President of the United States has always had the Constitutional authority to act as the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, conduct foreign affairs, repel invasions, and conduct certain other military affairs without prior approval of Congress, the right to declare war and thereby initiate a belligerency not already existing was reserved to Congress. The exact circumstances in which these facts operate remain highly controversial and debatable. The circumstance in which the Congress may elect to authorize a war of aggression in violation of the current laws of armed conflict is beyond debate and flatly illegal.

So we are agreed that Congress can declare war-period.

No, on the contrary, are not agreed at all. The Constitution said in 1787 that the Congress has the power to declare war, while the the power to make war was reserved only to the President. The Congress subsequently made binding treaties which made it unlawful under international law for the Congress to utilize its Constitutional power to commence a war by declaring war. A similar situation exists with respect to the Constitution giving the Congress the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to privateers. The international law changed and made letters of marque and reprisal illegal under international maritime laws, and the Congress complied with international law by abandoning its Constitutional power and making letters of marque and reprisal illegal under Federal law. The Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter forbid the commencement of war, and the Constitutional power to declare war is the power to commence war. Consequently, the prevailing understanding at the moment is that international law forbids Congress to utilize its Constitutional power to commence a war with a declaration of war. The Founding Fathers were very particular in observing that they and the U.S. Constitution were obligated to respect international law.

What the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter did not forbid was the right to make war in self-defense against a sovereign who commenced a war. On the contrary, those authorities require members to restore peace by negotiation and by making war in self-defense. Consequently, post Second World War hostilities have been conducted under the authority to make war in self-defense of the United States and/or the self-defense of member states against whom an aggressor/s have first commenced a war. The Constitution does not state the Congress must exercise its power by a formal declaration of war. Instead, the Constitution only grants the power to declare war, without defining the method/s by which the war is to be declared. Congressional resolutions authorizing the use of hostile military force has since been recognized as the means by which Congress exercises the power to dclare war in self-defense without a formal declaration of war that could be misrepresented as the older form by which a war was commenced by other sovereigns for the purpose of aggression.

NATO conducted military operations against the Government of Libya under the legal theory that ithe Libyan Government's war upon unarmed civilians invoked the U.N. Charter and its authority for members to conduct peacemaking operations in self-defense of the world community and the civilians.

Since the Constitution gave the power to make war and conduct foreign affairs to the President and the U.S. Congress had already authorized the President to comply with the NATO and United Nations treaties, the Presidential Administrations have typically interpreted the Constitution as having given the Commander-in-Chief the power to make war in compliance with already existing authorities to make war in a coalition for self-defense.

The Constitutional question as to whether or not the Congress had the power to limit the Constitutional power of the President and co-equal Executive Branch of government with the War Powers Act has never been ajudicated and settled.

The US has had a number of wars which might well be considered 'aggressive' but that is for the American People to decide, hence the right of Congress (the part of government closest to the People), to do so and to face the judgment of the American People when they do so.

The US is unlikely to have engaged in any international wars which would qualify under international law as being aggressive war making. Even the military operation against Libya was very clearly a military operation implementing the United Nations Charter mandate to conduct peacemaking operations in response to crimes against humanity.

What is illegal is the Executive branch acting without any concern of what Congress says.

That statement misrepresents the situation. The fact of the matter is that the Congress may have tried to close the barn door long after the horse ran out the barn door. In other words, the co-equal branch of government may be on good legal grounds to assert the Congress already authorized the United States and its Commander-in-Chief to make a war of self-defense under the NATO and United Nations authority to conduct peacemaking operations. This means the Congress may already have exercised the power to declare war by authorizing the United States to make war in the NATO and United Nations grants of authority, so Congress would have limited powers to retract the powers already exercised.