Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Rand Paul Misses: Congress, not the Constitution, should curtail the presidentís war powers.
National Review ^ | 03/09/2013 | Andrew McCarthy

Posted on 03/09/2013 5:03:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind

It was Wednesday, shortly before Senator Rand Paul’s bravura 13-hour filibuster, the Jimmy Stewart star turn in Paul’s crusade to have the Constitution ban a bogeyman of his own making: the killing of American citizens on American soil by America’s armed forces — a scandal that clearly cries out for action, having occurred exactly zero times in the 20 years since jihadists commenced hostilities by bombing the World Trade Center.

At a hearing of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Ted Cruz was grilling Attorney General Eric Holder. Cruz seemed beside himself — in the theatrical spirit of the day — over Holder’s refusal to concede that the imaginary use of lethal force conjured up by Paul would be, under any and all circumstances, unconstitutional. The attorney general preferred the fuzzier term “inappropriate” — at least until Senator Cruz finally browbeat him into saying that by “inappropriate” he meant “unconstitutional.”

Fuzzy was better. To be sure, Cruz is an accomplished constitutional scholar and a favorite of mine, and I can say neither of those things about the attorney general. Yet my sympathies were with Holder. I found myself wishing he’d stood by his equivocal guns.

I need to be careful here. To cross Paul admirers can mean being cast into the neocon darkness, along with all those other cogs in the military-industrial complex who dream of a global American empire — and that’s even when the offense is not compounded by suggesting that Eric Holder might have been right about something. So let me say outright: I am against using our armed forces to kill our citizens in our homeland.

That puts me in the same camp as about 99.9 percent of Americans. In part, that owes to our natural, patriotic predilection. But there’s another part of the explanation — just as important, but less well noticed: After 20 years, we understand the particular conflict we are in. We can confidently say that, in the war authorized by Congress a dozen years ago, we do not need to use lethal military force inside our country.

You see, there is a right way to do what Senator Paul says he wants to do, a way that does not involve messing around with the Constitution in a manner we will come to regret. Contrary to Senator Paul’s assertions, and those of senators Cruz and Mike Lee, who lent their voices and scholarly heft to Paul’s filibuster, the Constitution does not prohibit the use of lethal force in the United States against American citizens who collude with the enemy.

American history and jurisprudence teach that American citizens who join the enemy may be treated as the enemy: captured without warrant, detained indefinitely without trial, interrogated without counsel, accused of war crimes without grand-jury proceedings, tried by military commission without the protections of civilian due process, and executed promptly after conviction. That is because these measures are permissible under the laws of war, and the Constitution accommodates the laws of war — they are the rule of law when Congress has authorized warfare.

Under the laws of war, enemy combatants may be subjected to lethal force — that’s usually the idea. It makes no sense to conclude that the Constitution abides all the aforementioned departures from peacetime due process but prohibits the killing of American enemy combatants . . . particularly when the proponents of this novel claim are quick to concede that the government is free to use lethal force against American enemy combatants once they leave our territory.

The Constitution enables the government to marshal all the might necessary, under any conceivable circumstances, to quell threats to the United States. The Framers, with a humility that contrasts sharply with our certitude, understood that some threats could be existential in nature. While the senators busied themselves during the Paul filibuster with Alice in Wonderland and “Stand with Rand” tweets, it might have been worthwhile for someone to read Hamilton’s trenchant observation (from Federalist 23) that

it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite; and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed.

Heedlessly, Senator Paul and his supporters figure they have a handle on the infinite. We can safely assume, they tell us, that the Constitution bars attacks in the U.S. on Americans who — if you can follow this — appear to be non-combatants, even if they may be working with the enemy, as long as they are not engaged in “imminent” violence.

Really? Let’s imagine something that, unlike Senator Paul’s speculations, is actually foreseeable — a scenario based on the way our enemies function, as remote from the Washington debate as that may be. Let’s suppose we have an American scholar of Islam fulfilling the role of the Blind Sheikh — i.e., a jurist schooled in sharia with sufficient academic depth to be qualified to issue fatwas approving terrorist attacks.

Ostensibly, our American sheikh might be sitting passively in a mosque, a café, or an apartment. He certainly doesn’t look like an enemy combatant — especially if, as was the case with the Blind Sheikh, various maladies render him incapable of building a bomb, carrying out an assassination, or doing most things of use to a jihadist cell. Yet in the enemy’s doctrine, attacks cannot happen until he green-lights them. Senator Paul says he’s fine with lethal force against imminent threats. So, when does our sheikh get imminent? When the phone rings? When some other innocent-looking young man comes into the café, sits down at his table, and starts whispering in his ear?

Now, after 20 years, it is probably safe to say there is no need to have our armed forces on alert for this contingency. If the executive branch has enough intel to know who and where this sheikh is, the FBI can arrest him, just as the FBI arrested José Padilla as he disembarked from a plane in Chicago in 2002 — every bit the enemy combatant, though not yet acting on his mass-murder plot. That is how war power has always worked under the Constitution: Having the technical law-of-war justification to kill José Padilla does not require you to kill him. You do what is sensible under the circumstances.

In the ongoing conflict, the enemy does not have fortifications inside our territory that would enable its operatives to keep the police at bay. As long as we catch them in time, our enemies can be safely taken into custody. And if we catch them on the precipice of deadly action, ordinary law-enforcement principles allow for the use of lethal force to stop them.

But that may not always be the case. We could have enemies with much greater capabilities, enemies including traitorous Americans. The fact that we do not appear to need lethal military force in the homeland in this conflict does not mean we will never need it.

So leave the Constitution alone. The Constitution does not tell us what should or must be done in a particular situation. It tells us the outer limits of what is legitimate in all threat situations. To shackle our power to meet a threat, as Hamilton explained, is to put us in peril.

The goal, according to Senator Paul, is to shackle the president. That is done by trimming his sails in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), not by trimming his constitutional power.

Senator Paul has the controversy he sought because the Obama administration arrogantly claimed nigh-limitless power to kill anyone, anywhere, at the president’s whim. There is no reason to believe the president actually intends to abuse such power — he has not done so to this point and, as National Review’s Editors point out, “the day an administration starts killing Americans with drones at cafés — to borrow one of Rand Paul’s hypotheticals — is the day impeachment proceedings begin.” So, assuming the administration is simply trying to protect the president’s institutional turf, it has made the error of conflating the theoretically limitless power the Constitution could potentially vest in the president if a threat were dire enough with the finite authorization Congress has actually given the president for the use of force in this conflict.

Senators Paul and Cruz have suggested that the constitutional claim they’ve posited — viz., presidents are not empowered to kill Americans on American soil absent an imminent threat of violence — is “easy,” “clear,” and “obvious.” I respectfully disagree. It is none of those things. What is easy, clear, and obvious is that if we do not need certain troublesome authorities to fight a war successfully, Congress can withhold them.

Why does it make a difference whether this curtailment comes from the AUMF rather than the Constitution? Because, absent a sudden-attack situation, the Constitution makes Congress the master of what force is lawfully authorized, while our tradition holds that the courts are masters of what the Constitution means.

Since 2004, courts have made themselves a part of the national-security equation to an unprecedented degree. When challenged to construe constitutional doctrines, they seek to impose logic. Senator Paul’s proposal of a Constitution-based no-lethal-force exception to the principle that an American who joins the enemy may be treated like the enemy is not logical.

To iron out the inconsistencies, the courts may well conclude that if Americans are not to be treated as enemy combatants for purposes of lethal force, they should not be treated as enemy combatants for purposes of capture, detention, interrogation, and military war-crimes trials. Furthermore, if they follow the trajectory of the Supreme Court’s 2008 Boumediene decision, courts may well conclude that any core constitutional protections extended to American citizens must also be extended to alien enemy combatants. That would be the end of the law-of-war approach to counterterrorism.

Is that Senator Paul’s objective? I do not know. Many of his libertarian supporters would welcome it. Most Americans would disagree, recognizing that the war paradigm has been instrumental in preventing a reprise of 9/11.

I do know this: If all the senator really has in mind is some curtailment of presidential overreach, the right way to do that is to limit the AUMF. If his ambition is greater, if he believes the country would be better off ending the war paradigm and returning to peacetime due process, the forthright way to do that is to repeal the AUMF. That would be a terrible mistake, but one we could withstand, however painfully. What we might not be able to withstand is the shackling of constitutional powers we may someday need to sustain the United States.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the executive director of the Philadelphia Freedom Center.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: drones; randpaul; warpowers

1 posted on 03/09/2013 5:03:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The MSM are mostly covering Senator Paul as a nut. The state media continues to do Obama’s bidding. That a US Senator questioning the Kenyan POTUS’s dismissal of fifth and sixth amendment rights should be treated this way in a “free press” can mean only one thing...the press is no longer free.

The media caved in ‘07 when they refused to look into Obama’s early life, his college records, birth story, and upbringing in Indonesia. They still refuse to cover any story, in detail, if it might do harm to the Obama regime.

Bob Woodward is just the tip of the iceburg...there must be lots of lesser lights in the MSM who cower in fear...as Obama holds the IRS and other governmental agencies over their heads.

Will anyone talk?


2 posted on 03/09/2013 5:15:45 AM PST by kjo (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We are at “war paradigm.”


3 posted on 03/09/2013 5:16:21 AM PST by HomeAtLast ( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Rand Paul’s 13 hour diatribe was wonderful. He brought up many more conservative points than just the use of drones at home.

Keep it up senator. I will vote for you against Hillary.


4 posted on 03/09/2013 5:22:46 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is nice - just like when all the liberal pundits were correcting those liberal politicians who accused Bush and Cheney of over stepping their Constitutional bounds fighting the WOT...I hope to hell we see more filibusters out of the new guys and maybe ruin another dinner between Obungo, McCain and Linda


5 posted on 03/09/2013 5:23:46 AM PST by capydick (''Life's tough.......it's even tougher if you're stupid.'')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

6 posted on 03/09/2013 5:23:47 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

McCarthy is a good man, but there is too much fussing over small-print technicalities in his arguments — to the detriment of the Big Picture.

When governments merely PREPARE to kill their own citizens its time for dramatic action. Lurking somewhere in the current scenario is a last step that turns a president Obama into a Lincoln or Stalin or Mao or Saddam — perfectly willing to target entire segments of his own population for slaughter.

I’m all for “national security,” and I’m NOT a libertarian under even the loosest definition, but I’m with Rand Paul on this one. The idea of missile-toting, remote-controlled drones hovering above me and controlled by Big Brother can’t possibly be Constitutional, lest what good is the Constitution to me?


7 posted on 03/09/2013 5:24:14 AM PST by PaleoBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I am a Rand Paul fan.

But I have a question about how far he would, or would not, go with his analysis.

Suppose United 175 had been taken over 200 miles west of where it actually happened. Then suppose that by the time it arrived over NJ, we already had combat air patrol in place.

Suppose then that the hijacker pilot did not respond to standard warnings and had the South Tower lined up.

Does Senator Paul believe that a Presidential order to destroy the plane and all the US citizens on board would have been constitutional?


8 posted on 03/09/2013 5:27:46 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Andrew misses the most likely scenario: A militia group in paramilitary training in the woods killed by drone as enemies of the state preparing for warfare.
Count on it.


9 posted on 03/09/2013 5:28:32 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (Better the devil we can destroy than the Judas we must tolerate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PaleoBob

another thing that McCarthy is missing here is the very important political point: Rand showed that Obama can be attacked successfully, and that standing up to him is the thing to do. Our prissy establishment has created this monster of “likeability” - and now they cower from that very thing. I normally like McCarthy, but he missed on this one.


10 posted on 03/09/2013 5:30:17 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“having occurred exactly zero times in the 20 years since jihadists commenced hostilities by bombing the World Trade Center”

The claim of that power occurred exactly zero times in the 200+ years since this country was founded. Then Holder said what amounted to “stroke of a pen, death of a citizen - pretty cool.”

The claim also extends far beyond “jihadists” (who this administration seem oddly uninterested in).

Having to drag the DOJ head kicking and screaming into admitting “no we cannot kill an American citizen on American soil doing nothing harmful” is ... weird.


11 posted on 03/09/2013 5:31:34 AM PST by ctdonath2 (3% of the population perpetrates >50% of homicides...but gun control advocates blame metal boxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

McCarthy is usually great, but he’s wrong on this one. The constitution protects the individual, period, from both the president and the Congress. That is, if the constitution is being followed and upheld by variouis federal officials.


12 posted on 03/09/2013 5:32:19 AM PST by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What the author misses are three points:

1.) it is the Constitution that defines the boundaries that both the President and Congress have, and provides a means for one to overpower the other

2.) When there is a dispute for which neither has the will nor desire strong enough to override the other, but for which the action is contradictory to the Constitution, the USSC may be invited to step in, at which point the meaning of the Constitution is determined to govern

3.) in those rare instances when no. 2 above is deemed by the USSC to contradict the meaning of the Constitution, the will of both the President and Congress may be deemed unlawful or the Constitution may subsequently become amended. This normally takes a long time.


13 posted on 03/09/2013 5:37:05 AM PST by Real Cynic No More
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What the author misses are three points:

1.) it is the Constitution that defines the boundaries that both the President and Congress have, and provides a means for one to overpower the other

2.) When there is a dispute for which neither has the will nor desire strong enough to override the other, but for which the action is contradictory to the Constitution, the USSC may be invited to step in, at which point the meaning of the Constitution is determined to govern

3.) in those rare instances when no. 2 above is deemed by the USSC to contradict the meaning of the Constitution, the will of both the President and Congress may be deemed unlawful or the Constitution may subsequently become amended. This normally takes a long time.


14 posted on 03/09/2013 5:37:08 AM PST by Real Cynic No More
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


15 posted on 03/09/2013 5:38:16 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Mr. Andrew C. McCarthy needs to put his spectacles on and read the Fifth Amendment. It is very clear the federal government cannot kill a United States citizen without due process of law. The President’s judgement or urge is not due process of law.

Mr. McCarthy states, “The Constitution enables the government to marshal all the might necessary, under any conceivable circumstances, to quell threats to the United States.” Under his interpretation, a President could define anyone who opposes his or her policies as a threat to the United States. If I actively or passively oppose a law passed by Congress, or a regulation issued by the President, why shouldn’t I be considered a threat to the United States, particularly if I attempt to organize other citizens to actively oppose the law. Wasn’t Martin Luther King a “threat to the United States?” He deliberately flouted and violated laws in a nonviolent fashion. Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder have openly and deliberately chosen not to enforce laws passed by Congress. Are they not “threats to the United States”?

The Fifth Amendment is clear. It reads, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The words are clear — “No person shall. . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law. . .”.

With respect to the first part of the Fifth Amendment relating to answering to a crime in time of war, consider:
1) It specifically speaks to a capital or infamous crime. Plotting or minor crimes do not qualify.
2) It specifically speaks to a person in actual service (army, navy militia) in time of war or public danger. A citizen not enrolled in the armed forces is not “in actual service” and therefore cannot be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime without indictment (i.e. due process of law). In addition, the Amendment speaks to “time of War or public danger” with the word “War” capitalized and therefore implying a formal declaration of war. There has not been a formal declaration of war passed by Congress since the December 11, 1941 declaration of war against Germany. There is no declaration of war in effect today so the President has no authority to use the armed forces against US citizens or the citizens of any other nation.


16 posted on 03/09/2013 5:39:06 AM PST by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Wrong. The Constitution is an absolute. Obama does not have the authority to murder a US citizen on US territory. That decision should not require a specific Act of Congress for its prevention. The president (or in Obama’s case, the Community Organizer in Chief) cannot take that action with or without the approval of Congress.


17 posted on 03/09/2013 5:39:27 AM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88
McCarthy: “You do what is sensible under the circumstances.”

When Obama is President, this is not reassuring.

18 posted on 03/09/2013 5:43:19 AM PST by GoDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HomeAtLast

Exactly. There is zero guidance from the constitution on what is considered an official declaration of war. Technically if congress officially proclaims we are at war and votes to fund the proclamation, once signed by the president we are at war. This 10 plus year “War on Terror” is just the latest example.

Additionally, since we are in a state of war the congress has the constitutional authority under Article I section 8 to establish tribunals that are inferior to the supreme court for the purpose of dealing with piracy and other felonies.


19 posted on 03/09/2013 5:47:11 AM PST by PJammers (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

McCarthy also seems to just glide on by the fact that this debate began concerning the use of drones. Drones are used in hostile nations because we have no other practical way to get at the terrorists who are a threat.

Within the US, we have almost limitless ways to get at any individual and group that might pose a threat. You really have to use a lot of imagination to come up with a scenario where the use of drones would be the only way to deal with a threat within the US.


20 posted on 03/09/2013 5:53:27 AM PST by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South
A Declaration of War does not require any “magic words” — Congressional Authorization is just that.

You will find very few authorities who disagree with me on this point.

While I understand your point, I think common ground between McCarthy and Rand Paul can be found.

21 posted on 03/09/2013 6:00:51 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The argument is based on a false premise-

That is because these measures are permissible under the laws of war, and the Constitution accommodates the laws of war — they are the rule of law when Congress has authorized warfare.

The above is a true statement, but the suthor bases on the presumption that Congress actually ever Declared war.

The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.
~George Washington

The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.
James Madison

As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States, without an act of Congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration.
James Kent, Commentaries 1826

Congress never declared war, they passes a voice vote on a resolution.

declaration
n. 1) any statement made, particularly in writing. 2) a written statement made "under penalty of perjury" and signed by the declarant, which is the modern substitute for the more cumbersome affidavit, which requires swearing to its truth before a notary public.

resolution
n. a determination of policy of a corporation by the vote of its board of directors. Legislative bodies also pass resolutions, but they are often statements of policy, belief or appreciation, and not always enactment of statutes or ordinances.

A Declaration of War is a written, sworn testimony that the undersigned parties intend, in truth, to do something. It is a binding affidavit.

A Resolution of Force is an un witnessed statement, which truthfully, is just an opinion.

Once you let them have a war under their own definitions, all Constituional protections go out the window!

22 posted on 03/09/2013 6:04:13 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo

og course, ask Rubio, Sarah etc about when they make headlines the lap dog media comes out to attack and get rid of the threat from their dear messiah.

Ever noticed how the media does not attack for a couple of days, one would think the media gets their talking points from the radical left and then organise their attack as one.


23 posted on 03/09/2013 6:05:01 AM PST by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"zero times in the 20 years "

Drones in the US have been happening for about 20 DAYS. It's new and scares crap out of me. That and warnings from Dear Janet of Homeland Security warning last year of the types of people they're watching...people who like guns, and don't like current politics. Prefaced by Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzalez.

It's chilling.

24 posted on 03/09/2013 6:13:18 AM PST by chiller (Do not consume any NBCNews;MTPTodayNightlyNewsMorningJoeMSNBCBrianWilliams sts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
A Declaration of War does not require any “magic words” — Congressional Authorization is just that.

Then according to you, the Founders should have written a Resolution of Independence and not bothered signing it, right?

25 posted on 03/09/2013 6:13:20 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“...the killing of American citizens on American soil by America’s armed forces... having occurred exactly zero times in the 20 years since jihadists commenced hostilities by bombing the World Trade Center....”

That just blows his column out of the water.

“Just because the Nazis had a conference at Wannsee about the “Final solution to the Jewish question” doesn’t mean they actually might *hurt* any Jews!”

The NDAA has authorized the military “detention” of American citizens, without indictment, trial, or appeal. The Posse Comitatus Act is effectively dead, meaning that the military can function as “police” in the United States.

And now the FAA has authorized the military, the hundred plus federal police agencies, and even private entities to fly drones all over the United States. While they insist that the drones will not be armed, that it an almost whimsical statement, since Obama has authorized the Just Us Department to decide if lethal force can be used against Americans in America, and Just Us is effectively immune from prosecution or lawsuit for wrongful death.

Of course Obama would never order the murder of his *major* Republican opponents, but do you think he would hesitate one second to order a drone strike in a Ruby Ridge or even Waco incident?

He likely considers such people as “insects”, “clinging to their guns and their god”.


26 posted on 03/09/2013 6:14:11 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

You are ridiculous.

All the Constitution requires is for the Congress to authorize use of the military, in situations which are not emergencies. In an emergency the President can act without Congress.

You do realize that the Veterans Administration considers the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the ENTIRE Iraq War and Afghanistan War to be DECLARED Wars for purposes of VA Benefits, don’t you?

Grenada is not recognized by the Veterans Administration as a Declared War.


27 posted on 03/09/2013 6:19:52 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“The Constitution does not prohibit the use of lethal force in the United States against American citizens who collude with the enemy.”

No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process.

In the context of criticizing Paul, who recognizes (1) a person can be deprived of life with due process and (2) a person who poses an imminent threat to others can, if necessary, be deprived of life, what could the writer from National Review be talking about?

Let’s see:

The President has determined that Jane Fonda colluded with North Vietnam. Upon her return to the U.S., while she is drinking coffee at a cafe and posing no immediate threat to anybody, the President has her assassinated.

Versus

The President has determined that there is reason to believe Jane Fonda colluded with North Vietnam. Upon her return to the U.S., while is drinking coffee at a cafe and posing no immediate threat to anybody, the President follows due process to have her arrested and subjected to trial by a jury.


28 posted on 03/09/2013 6:29:28 AM PST by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Regarding immediate threats, the President in his capacity as Commander in Chief can act, as well as every law enforcement officer and even private citizens, can act, including can us deadly force if necessary.

There is and never was any question about this.

Under common law tradition, each person has an inherent right of self-defense. I’ll forego whether the government obtains the power to use force from the consent of the people or from God; and, simply state the government has this right as well.


29 posted on 03/09/2013 6:38:38 AM PST by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Regarding immediate threats, the President in his capacity as Commander in Chief can act, as well as every law enforcement officer and even private citizens, can act, including can us deadly force if necessary.

There is and never was any question about this.

Under common law tradition, each person has an inherent right of self-defense. I’ll forego whether the government obtains the power to use force from the consent of the people or from God; and, simply state the government has this right as well.


30 posted on 03/09/2013 6:38:38 AM PST by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PaleoBob

Well said.


31 posted on 03/09/2013 6:46:09 AM PST by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
What McCarthy is missing is the reality of the Senate. In a body that has refused its constitutional mandate to pass a budget for four years there is no chance the war powers act will be changed. The way to START making change is to arouse public sentiment first. There are many ways to do that and Paul used a very effective one. Chasing our tails with sophistry about how a gangster like Harry Reid will join a patriot like Rand Paul makes good reading in conservative think tanks but falls far short elsewhere.
32 posted on 03/09/2013 6:46:44 AM PST by jmaroneps37 (Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You are ridiculous.

Starting the argument with an ad hominem attack, I see.

------

All the Constitution requires is for the Congress to authorize use of the military, in situations which are not emergencies.

No, the Constituion authorizes Congress to Declare war. They have no authority to 'use' the military. There is no authroization for a standing military, period.

In an emergency the President can act without Congress.

Please show me the Constituional Article, Section AND Clause that grants the President such authority.

-----

You do realize that the Veterans Administration considers the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the ENTIRE Iraq War and Afghanistan War to be DECLARED Wars for purposes of VA Benefits, don’t you?

Since the VA is part of the federal government, I would expect othing less.

-----

No, the FACT is the American people are being played for patsies by a government which has been mucking around inside the borders of other soverign countries. Between the oil conntracts and the defense contracts, the 'players' enrich themseleves while the inalienable Rights of the People are slowly strangled under the guise of keeping them safe.

The Founders warned us, but our sound-bite society has no desire to listen.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
~James Madison

To declare that the end justifies the means, to declare that the government may commit crimes, would bring terrible retribution.
~Justice Louis D. Brandeis

We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.
~Benjamin Harrison

"War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at home: the object of it is an increase of revenue: and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretence must be made for expenditures. In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice, nor warped by interest, would declare, that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes."
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Part 1

33 posted on 03/09/2013 6:50:01 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: chiller

Drones are just a tool, the next popular boogeyman.
The real problem is a government willing to kill citizens without warrant, which happens easily enough without drones.


34 posted on 03/09/2013 6:57:47 AM PST by ctdonath2 (3% of the population perpetrates >50% of homicides...but gun control advocates blame metal boxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Senator Paul already answered a very similar question on what to do if Flight 93’s passengers hadn’t staged a counterattack and the Muslim terrorists had flown it to Washington. Since it would have been actively involved in an attack it could be shot down by the military.


35 posted on 03/09/2013 7:02:32 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Choose one: the yellow and black flag of the Tea Party or the white flag of the Republican Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
You are a looney tune.
I am sure that Rand Paul and Andrew McCarthy would agree on that point.
You deserve to be attacked, as your views are destructive and even dangerous, in addition to being naive and impossible to follow without sacrificing our country.
1.)The President IS “Commander in Chief” and no authority in Congress or the Courts has EVER stated that the President did not have power to act, with military force, in an emergency without specific Congressional authority.
2.) The War Powers Act clearly DOES give the Prsident emergency powers.
3.) Any Act of Congress, such as an “Authorization for use of military force” does carry the full weight of Constitutional Authority.
4.) A Treaty is the “Supreme Law of the Land” and in the case of Iraq, United Nations Treaties and Treaties with other countries WERE impacted.

From reading your posts, you tend to decided what YOU want, then you attempt to turn your wishes into “Constitutional” arguments. To do so actually weakens the Constitution that you claim to respect.

Not every argument is a Constitutional argument. Your knee-jerk insistence to push every disasgreement into that framework is what makes you a kook.

36 posted on 03/09/2013 7:08:52 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Agreed. I think the right to move freely about secure in your person means free from fear of a govt drone strike. :-)


37 posted on 03/09/2013 7:40:24 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

I’m expecting any day now to start seeing stories in the news of “Right Wing Extremist” blowing themselves up while making a bomb.

Maybe “an explosion caused by a gas leak” will become common for those that oppose the lefts agenda.


38 posted on 03/09/2013 7:40:30 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
1.)The President IS “Commander in Chief” and no authority in Congress or the Courts has EVER stated that the President did not have power to act, with military force, in an emergency without specific Congressional authority.

LOL! So now the president's power is not limited by the Constitution, but by what ever powers Congress and the Courts tell him he DOESN'T have? LOL!

-----

The War Powers Act clearly DOES give the President emergency powers.

Please show me the authority Congress has to 'grant' the Office of President anything outside the already delegated Constitutional limits.

-----

Any Act of Congress, such as an “Authorization for use of military force” does carry the full weight of Constitutional Authority.

Why? Because they SAY it does? So you think government gets to be the sole arbitrator of what powers it does or does not possess?

James Madison disagreed.

The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
FEDERALIST No. 41
General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution

Since 'attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications' speaks of the Constitution's requirement for formal and LEGAL procedures, I DO believe I'll be taking his word over yours.

-----

A Treaty is the “Supreme Law of the Land”

No, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the Land and Treaties made UNDER it must adhere to it as well.

That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.

St. George Tucker View of the Constitution

and in the case of Iraq, United Nations Treaties and Treaties with other countries WERE impacted.

So? Nations 'impact' each other all the time. When Kuwait was invaded, we would have had every right under the Law of Nations to wipe Iraq off the map had we declared war.

NOWHERE is the federal government given the authority to take military action on one nation because a treaty with another nation was 'impacted'.

----

Not every argument is a Constitutional argument. Your knee-jerk insistence to push every disasgreement into that framework is what makes you a kook.

PSST!- the subject of the thread IS Constitutional authority, but maybe all your spittling bluster about how ca-RAZY I am blinded you to that fact.

Have a nice day.

39 posted on 03/09/2013 8:08:40 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More

This is how you deal with communists:

On 26 May 1973, Chile’s Supreme Court unanimously denounced the Allende régime’s disruption of the legality of the nation in its failure to uphold judicial decisions. It refused to permit police execution of judicial resolutions that contradicted the Government’s measures.
Chamber of Deputies’ resolution

On 22 August 1973, with the support of the Christian Democrats and National Party members, the Chamber of Deputies passed 81–47 a resolution that asked “the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces”[18] to “put an immediate end” to “breach[es of] the Constitution . . . with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the Constitutional order of our Nation, and the essential underpinnings of democratic co-existence among Chileans.”

The resolution declared that the Allende Government sought “. . . to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the State . . . [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system”, claiming it had made “violations of the Constitution . . . a permanent system of conduct.” Essentially, most of the accusations were about the Socialist Government disregarding the separation of powers, and arrogating legislative and judicial prerogatives to the executive branch of government.

Specifically, the Socialist Government of President Allende was accused of:

ruling by decree, thwarting the normal legislative system
refusing to enforce judicial decisions against its partisans; not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives
ignoring the decrees of the independent General Comptroller’s Office
sundry media offences; usurping control of the National Television Network and applying ... economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government...
allowing its socialist supporters to assemble armed, preventing the same by its right wing opponents
. . . supporting more than 1,500 illegal ‘takings’ of farms...
illegal repression of the El Teniente miners’ strike
illegally limiting emigration

Finally, the resolution condemned the creation and development of government-protected [socialist] armed groups, which . . . are headed towards a confrontation with the armed forces. President Allende’s efforts to re-organize the military and the police forces were characterised as notorious attempts to use the armed and police forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks.[19]

By 7:00 am on 11 September 1973, the Navy captured Valparaíso, strategically stationing ships and marine infantry in the central coast and closed radio and television networks. The Province Prefect informed President Allende of the Navy’s actions; immediately, the president went to the presidential palace, La Moneda, with his bodyguards, the Grupo de Amigos Personales (GAP) (Group of Personal Friends). By 8:00 am, the Army had closed most radio and television stations in Santiago city; the Air Force bombed the remaining active stations; the President received incomplete information, and was convinced that only a sector of the Navy conspired against him and his government.

President Allende and Defence minister Orlando Letelier were unable to communicate with military leaders. Admiral Montero, the Navy’s commander and an Allende loyalist, was rendered incommunicado; his telephone service was cut and his cars were sabotaged before the coup d’état, to ensure he could not thwart the opposition. Leadership of the Navy was transferred to José Toribio Merino, planner of the coup d’état and executive officer to Adm. Montero. Augusto Pinochet, General of the Army, and Gustavo Leigh, General of the Air Force, did not answer Allende’s telephone calls to them. The General Director of the Carabineros (uniformed police), José María Sepúlveda, and the head of the Investigations Police (plain clothes detectives), Alfredo Joignant answered Allende’s calls and immediately went to the La Moneda presidential palace. When Defence minister Letelier arrived at the Ministry of Defense, controlled by Adm. Patricio Carvajal, he was arrested as the first prisoner of the coup d’état.

Despite evidence that all branches of the Chilean armed forces were involved in the coup, Allende hoped that some units remained loyal to the government. Allende was convinced of Pinochet’s loyalty, telling a reporter that the coup d’état leaders must have imprisoned the general. Only at 8:30 am, when the armed forces declared their control of Chile and that Allende was deposed, did the president grasp the magnitude of the military’s rebellion. Despite the lack of any military support, Allende refused to resign his office.

By 9:00 am, the armed forces controlled Chile, except for the city centre of the capital, Santiago. Allende refused to surrender, despite the military’s declaring they would bomb the La Moneda presidential palace if he resisted being deposed. The Socialist Party proposed to Allende that he escape to the San Joaquín industrial zone in southern Santiago, to later re-group and lead a counter-coup d’état; the president rejected the proposition. The military rebels attempted negotiations with Allende, but the President refused to resign, citing his constitutional duty to remain in office. Finally, Allende gave a potent farewell speech, telling the nation of the coup d’état and his refusal to resign his elected office under threat.

Annoyed with negotiating, Leigh ordered the presidential palace bombed, but was told the Air Force’s Hawker Hunter jet aircraft would take forty minutes to arrive. Pinochet ordered an armoured and infantry force under General Sergio Arellano to advance upon the La Moneda presidential palace. When the troops moved forward, they were forced to retreat after coming under fire from GAP snipers perched on rooftops. General Arellano called for helicopter gunship support from the commander of the Chilean Army Puma helicopter squadron and the troops were able to advance again.[32] Chilean Air Force aircraft soon arrived to provide close air support for the assault (by bombing the Palace), but the defenders did not surrender until nearly 2:30 pm.[33]


40 posted on 03/09/2013 8:19:51 AM PST by Rome2000 (THE WASHINGTONIANS AND UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE ARE THE ENEMY -ROTATE THE CAPITAL AMONGST THE STATES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Presumably the Constitution does limit the president’s war-making power.


41 posted on 03/09/2013 8:28:20 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

From McCarthy's article, "Heedlessly, Senator Paul and his supporters figure they have a handle on the infinite.

National Review showed its colors when it dove into the tank for Romney and McCarthy jumps in to join McCain and Graham in bashing Senator Paul.

42 posted on 03/09/2013 8:43:30 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (Thanks Mitt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PaleoBob

Uh-oh. Lincoln = Stalin? Even though slavery requires a police state to exist and “ targets entire segments “ of the population for abrogation of their rights ? I suspect you know the Constitution much better than I; where does it say that slaves need to be of African descent? Suppose you had been uno of the octos born to OctoMom— could she have sold you into slavery under the Constitution that Lincoln supposedly tore up?


43 posted on 03/09/2013 8:55:44 AM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There are probably 40% of the population who would be thrilled if obama hit a Tea Party rally with a drone.

This writer is naive if he doesn’t believe mccain and most politicians from both parties want the Tea Party destroyed by any means neccessary. I use the Tea Party as one example.

The founding fathers had no idea how easy it would become in the future to fix elections.

The founding fathers had no idea that a majority of congress would be filled with the type of people we have today.

The founding fathers never thought we’d be a war with a religion on our side of the earth . And they sure never dreamed the populace would become so stupid that they’d elect one of the enemy president.


44 posted on 03/09/2013 8:58:59 AM PST by Terry Mross (How long before America is gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

The highjacker would be engaged in an attack on the country. The passengers would simply be collateral damage.


45 posted on 03/09/2013 9:01:18 AM PST by Terry Mross (How long before America is gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

You are clearly wrong on every point that you are trying to make.

Yes, a TREATY does OBLIGATE the United States to defend another country, if that is stated in said Treaty. The Treaty itself, once ratified, is Congressional authority to use military force, but Congress can clearly revoke said Treaty or refuse to fund a military effort taken by any President.

The Constitution is NOT a text book, or a complete guide to how all issues should be resolved. It is not intended to spell out every single action the government can or can not take.

Some things are specifically allowed, some things are specifically prohibited. Congress is given BROAD power to IMPLEMENT the Constitutional framework for our form of government.

Yes, you are CRAZY, and you have very very few people, alive today, who share your nutty views.


46 posted on 03/09/2013 10:59:58 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Rep. Gowdy a month ealier
47 posted on 03/09/2013 12:24:34 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

Count on the power going out nationwide within a few weeks of that happening on a large scale. A tyranny (even a popular “tyranny of the majority”), will not have the power to run its toys and murder patriots wholesale, if the power is shut off. And the power can be shut off anytime. The power flows through the transmission lines only while the social contract (read, “The Constitution”) is still largely in effect.


48 posted on 03/09/2013 4:58:30 PM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

Uh-oh. Lincoln = Stalin? Even though slavery requires a police state to exist and “ targets entire segments “ of the population for abrogation of their rights ? I suspect you know the Constitution much better than I; where does it say that slaves need to be of African descent? Suppose you had been uno of the octos born to OctoMom— could she have sold you into slavery under the Constitution that Lincoln supposedly tore up?


Lincoln might have agonized at great length and depth and blah blah blah before doing it (and thus merited statues and academy award performances for having done so), but he waged war on half the nation he was elected to lead and killed more Americans than any American ever did before or after.

That’s just a fact.

Once the leader of a nation starts (or started) killing his own citizens in great numbers, he enters the same realm of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Ho, Ceaucescu, etc. —

During the 20th century more than 170 million people were killed by their own government. Most of these killings were “justified” in some way or another as worthy acts by the government that carried out the killings. Stalin used to sign the death sentence certificates AFTER killing the people and it always accused them of serious “crimes,” some of which might have risen to the level of abiding slavery.

Of course slavery in the South was a bad thing, but it was also based on a plantation system that was as doomed to fail as one of Stalin’s five-year plans for that matter. There are many bad things done in America and yet only one president has waged outright war on half of us. In most cases, presidents rely on legal, civil means for changing the things they don’t like—and a failing system shouldn’t be all that tough to replace via clever politics and such.

The Constitution guaranteed rights to the States including the right to be utterly stupid and vile in their various practices. (To wit: My state allows men to marry other men, an abomination.)

No southern state would have ratified the Constitution as it was perceived by Lincoln. Most wouldn’t even ratify it today knowing how easily distorted it is — and slavery wouldn’t even enter into that calculation.

This whole “Lincoln freed the slaves” thing is all fine and good but where did he get that authority in the first place? It was really no better than one of those Stalin death sentence certificates.

Just ask yourself this question—There is a candidate for president who, if elected in 2016, will wage war on every state west of the Mississippi because he has A REALLY GOOD REASON to do it. (Just ask him.) Are you going to vote for him?

As for octos and unos, I’m assuming that’s some sort of rap music thing?? I don’t know any of that.

In any case, I realize my view of Lincoln is a minority view. And that most people think he was a saint.


49 posted on 03/09/2013 6:34:03 PM PST by PaleoBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson