He's right on Constitutional issues.That's fine if you think the response to 9/11 should be the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal (which Ron Paul advocated) instead of dropping some Daisy Cutters on the Taliban (which Bush did).
. . . and that is fine if you like a declaration of war on a tactic, not a country. The "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" approach would be to set a bounty of $10 billion on Osamma's head and see how long it stayed on his shoulders. Lots cheaper than the WOT, and possibly more effective.If that didn't work it could only be because of action by a foreign government, with which we would then have a causus belli. It might have played out the same in reality, but politically it would have been advantageous. And it would (obviously) have been constitutional.
You live in a dream world.
Imagine for a minute if Bush's response to 9/11 was the equivalent of stapling WANTED posters on telephone poles and in the Post Office.
The real world is outside.