Posted on 12/25/2011 9:54:26 AM PST by 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.
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?
I am not a fan of Paul’s foreign policy, but he is dead on with the war declarations.
The problem with Paul is he is ignoring parts of the Constitution regarding use of military force in saying it can only be used with a ‘formal declaration of war’ as worded the way he expects. Declarations of war work against a specific nation-state but doesn’t apply against groups who don’t fight for a nation like terrorist organizations or organized crime. Using just the declaration of war option limits the scope of how our military can defend us.
Let’s take a look back at the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 gives three uses for military force. 1. A formal declaration of war. 2. Suppressing insurrections or rebellions. & 3. Punishing piracy and offenses against the law of nations.
The last one is important because it gives Congress the means to defend our nations interest when it comes to non-formal war where things such as a treaty with us is violated or there is asymmetrical military action against us (such as the Barbary pirates Jefferson went after).
Congress did use #3 in our move against Iraq as they had violated treaties with us as well as other treaties we are co-signatories with.
Remember, the Constitution declares that treaties are to be considered high law of the land, the only thing other than itself it uses. Unless Congress de-ratifies said treaty, it is an agreement we are obligated to honor.
Also, note, back in 2001, Paul agreed with this when he voted to go into Afghanistan under the ‘authorization to use force’ versus a declaration of war (#3 above).
This is why it is important to not play with the Constitution like Paul does. He is using this line like the left does when they tried to make Bush a war criminal but he is contradicting his own votes regarding Afghanistan.
What is important is to have a Congress that specifically puts the US interest first and not does or says things for political soundbites.
Ron Paul is dead wrong, and is hoodwinking a lot of gullible people about a declaration of war. There are some very excellant and compelling legal reasons why a declaration of war is not supposed to be used by any other than a few nations since the Second World War. Until you can enumerate those reasons and understand them well enough to debate the reasons for their existence, you are arguing from blind ignorance. The question then is whether or not Ron Paul is arguing from blind ignorance, or he knows what he is doing is wrong and deceptive?
True.. some people are for the Constitution and some are for the Constitution kinda.. partially..
Ron Paul is for the Constitution..
Others are kinda sorta for the Constitution..
You are missing the elephant in the room. A declaration of war is mostly illegal under most circumstances of international law. There are only a few circumstances under which such declarations may be legally possible, since the adoption of certain early 20th Century international treaties. Warfare is still lawful and even obligatory under these later international laws, but the warfare is not lawful by authority of a declaration of war in these circumstances.
On the contrary, Ron Paul is proposing unconstitutional acts.
Considering he didn’t have a problem with a non-declaration of war with the authorization to use force in Afghanistan shows he is being deceptive. He was just joining the chorus that wanted to call Bush a war criminal.
Paultard apologists like yourself is the problem. If Paul gets it, we will not only lose, but even more dangerous would be the remote possibility he could become President. (A highly FATAL error on our part.)
You are right in that fact as well.
WhiskeyX isn’t a Paultard apologist. Read his other comments and the context of the one he was talking about.
I believe Ron Paul believes in the Monroe Doctrine i.e. ...The doctrine put forward that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence...
Ron Paul is for the Constitution in the same way Fred Phelps is for the Bible.
OK, granted......
[ On the contrary, Ron Paul is proposing unconstitutional acts. ]
If SO... it would be an excellent vector for attacking him..
If NOT true.. it would be a lie..
Tempting as it may be to agree, it is necessary to defend ron Paul on this account.
The United States of America is a sovereign nation. A non-governmental and non-sovereign organization known as Al Qaeda unlawfully declared war upon the United States two or more times and conducted unlawful combat and unlawful acts of terrorism against the United States, its Citizens, and its territory in multiple acts of international terrorism, including air piracy.
The Taliban, while in disputed control of the government of Afghanistan, used the sovereign territory of Afghanistan to harbor, aid, and assist the Al Waeda warfare against the United States and its Citizens.
The President of the United States has both the Constitutional authority and Constitutional obligation to protect and defend the Citizens of the United States against foreign and domestic enemies who engage in hostilities against the United States.
No declaration of war was necessary under the U.S. Constitution, because the state of war pre-existed with the Afghan participation in the hostile attacks and belligerancy against the United States. A declaration of war is likely to have been unnecessary and unlawful under the current international law and treaties regarding the Afghan hostile belligerency.
The situation with regard to Libya was quite different. Although Libya has engaged in hostile acts justifying the observance of a state of war between the two nations, the latest events were pursued under the authority of the United States membership in NATO and the NATO peacekeeping authoirty. The U.S. Constitutional requirement is different with respect to these circumstances and calls into question whether or not any President can engage in the NATO peacekeeping operations beyond the War Powers Act without the approval of Congress and appropriations for such military operations.
[ Ron Paul is for the Constitution in the same way Fred Phelps is for the Bible. ]
So.. Fred spins the bible?, and Paul spins the Constitution?..
However; The bible is not kind to queers... whether Fred likes it or not..
Linking Fred and Ron is a stretch.. they both can be wrong about some things and right about others..
Neither is perfect.. like nOOt he’s not perfect either..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.