Answers to Ron Paul's Questions on Iraq From an Opponent of the War

Lew Rockwell ^ | 9/14/02 | Jacob G. Hornberger

[Roscoe]

An honest reading of the Constitution shows that the War Powers Resolution is illegal.

An honest reading of your post shows that you are begging the question.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"By that kind of reasoning, our government can take any power not specifically denied to it in the Constitution. That's not true, Luis."

No one took anything away from anyone.

The President, in his Constitutional role as Commander in Chief, has to look to Congress for the funding to conduct a military campaign. Should congress decide to issue a formal declaration of war, then, and by the very constitutional role as Commander In Chief, the president, and only the president, can declare a victory, and the situation secured.

Now, the constitution specifically says that only congress can declare war, but that does not mean that it required the President to wait for an Act of Congress to set out our fighters to intercept a fleet of ChiCom bombers on its way to California, and then to secure ourselves, nor does it say that the US military can ONLY be deployed in the event of a declared war.

You are arguing in favor of Saddam Hussein being able to violate a document he himself signed, because it took away his ability, as the leader of a sovereign nation, to provide for the defense of his nation?

And against the US having the ability to do whatever their constitutionally elected government does in order to secure the nation after an attack on our soil, because the Constitution does not allow it?

[Boot Hill]

Q:   Where in the constitution do you find a requirement for the President to seek a declaration of war from Congress prior to going to war?

A:   ???

Regards, Boot Hill

[Misterioso]

He's not a Rockwell writer, but Rockwell may very well use his writings. He has his own enterprise, the Future of Freedom Foundation.

http://www.fff.org/

[Roscoe]

"These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force."

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article01/41.html#5

[exodus]

I'm with you, captain!!
But before we go, could you show me our Congressional authorization?
Just for form's sake, you know.


To: exodus
See number 228 above. Let's roll, okay?

# 230 by MHGinTN

*************************

I have no problem with going to war, MHGinTN.

I don't care if Osama, Saddam, and other bad guys started it. I don't care if the United States caused the problems by betraying allies and playing at king-making.

No matter who's responsible for creating the danger, the fact is that the danger exists. If my son murdered someone, and that man's relatives came to exact revenge on my family because they couldn't find my son, I would kill them.

The same holds true with our problems with the Moslem nations who support terrorism. I don't care WHY you want to kill my people, I won't allow it.

My problem is with the illegal actions of my government. War MUST be declared by Congress to be legal. We are a nation bound by the Rule of Law. That law is based upon the written Constitution.

I don't want my people killed by terrorists.

I also don't want to see our free society destroyed from within by illegal violations of the Rule of Law performed by my own government.

Make it legal.

Have Congress declare war.

[Boot Hill]

Roscoe,

Thanks for the link (again)! I just took a quick look at it and I can already tell I'm going to enjoy reading that one. I agree the President has the power, however I think exodus may require a little more than the word of the Supreme Court and I'd like to hear what his reasoning is.

Regards,

Boot Hill

[exodus]

To: exodus
An honest reading of your post shows that you are begging the question.
# 261 by Roscoe

*************************

What question, Roscoe?

[L.N. Smithee]

I don't care if anyone on this forum disagrees but it is my view, and I happen to be right, that W is doing more to take apart our country and our nation than 5 consecutive terms of Clinton could have done. Not that Clinton wouldn't have tried to do what W is about to attempt now. It's only that there would have been more dissent if Clinton tried it.

Let me see if I have this straight...Clinton would have attempted the same thing, but because Bush is trying it, he's doing "more to take apart our country" than TWENTY YEARS of Clinton, because more dissent against Clinton would have kept the nation from being "taken apart"?

I don't know how anyone on the forum could possibly disagree with that. </sarcasm>

[Isle of sanity in CA]

Article II/Section 2 of the Constitution -

The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States

The air force isn't mentioned here. Do you think that the Air Force shouldn't recognize the president as the commander in chief? After all, the constitution clearly states that he's the CIC of the Army and Navy.

[Roscoe]

Begging the question (Circular Argument):
Concluding that some statement is true because you have used it as a premise.

[Roscoe]

Findlaw is a great source.

[exodus]

The President is REQUIRED by the un-Constitutional War Powers Act to withdraw all military forces at the end of 8 months. We've been bombing Iraq almost daily since the end if the Gulf War, in violation of the War Powers Act .

To: exodus
"No one took anything away from anyone..."

"...Now, the Constitution specifically says that only Congress can declare war, but that does not mean that it required the President to wait for an Act of Congress to set out our fighters to intercept a fleet of ChiCom bombers on its way to California, and then to secure ourselves, nor does it say that the US military can ONLY be deployed in the event of a declared war..."
# 262 by Luis Gonzalez

*************************

I never said that the President didn't have the power and duty to respond to an emergency.

I'm saying that we are not in the middle of an emergency NOW. The emergency stiuation was over within days.

Congress had plenty of time to go over the facts, and issue a Declaration of War. It's been over a year, and Congress STILL hasn't decided whether we're at war or not.

Without that Congressional decision to make war, the President is acting outside of the Constitutional limits placed upon the Executive branch.

[Isle of sanity in CA]

Without that Congressional decision to make war, the President is acting outside of the Constitutional limits placed upon the Executive branch

If he directs the Air Force to fly sorties, isn't he acting outside of the Constitutional limits placed upon the executive branch? How about the Marine Corp (although technically they're part of the Dept of Navy)

[L.N. Smithee]

Saddam Hussein even asked permission of the United States ambassador to Iraq, and waited for her to give that permission BEFORE attacking Kuwait.

Presuming, for the sake of argument, that is a fact -- if "permission" of the US was so desired, why did Saddam refuse to evacuate Kuwait after the US withdrew it?

If you wish to invest in the idea that Saddam was April Glaspie's lapdog, when her higher-ups overruled her and pulled on the reigns, why did he resist?

[MHGinTN]

Well and truly stated. The airforce began as an adjunct of the Army, if memory serves. You've posted the flaw in strict 'constitutionaism', yet I tend to agree that the vacuous brained Congress should be on record as having voted for the up-coming slaughter (and it better be a good one, with tremendous air cover to ground every scud in Iraq).

I'm struck by the lack of sovereign attention (We the People) to the facts of 1998, when the Congress bestowed the power upon sinkEmperor and the crooked _ _ _ _ k chose to slink away from striking appropriately. By inaction then, we are in more of an urgent situation now, but the American sheeple appear to be at a loss to understand this, if you listen to lil' tommy daschle and HUB Leahy.

[exodus]

To: exodus
"...You are arguing in favor of Saddam Hussein being able to violate a document he himself signed, because it took away his ability, as the leader of a sovereign nation, to provide for the defense of his nation?

And against the US having the ability to do whatever their constitutionally elected government does in order to secure the nation after an attack on our soil, because the Constitution does not allow it?..."
# 262 by Luis Gonzalez

*************************

I said that Saddam, as the sovereign of an independent nation, has the duty to protect his subjects from harm.

Saddam IS the law in his nation. ANY action he takes is completely legal.

I've said that OUR government is based upon the Rule of Law, with that law based upon the written Constitution.

Our President is not a sovereign. His decision IS NOT law.

He is limited by a written Constitution that says that he DOES NOT go to war without the permission of the citizens of his nation, in the form of a Declaration of War from the representatives in Congress.

[Roscoe]

Saddam IS the law in his nation. ANY action he takes is completely legal.

If he has weapons of mass destruction, he's finished.

[Boot Hill]

exodus says:   "[The President] is limited by a written Constitution that says that he DOES NOT go to war without the permission of the citizens of his nation, in the form of a Declaration of War from the representatives in Congress."

It does? Where does it say that? I mean where does it specifically say that?

Regards,

Boot Hill

[exodus]

To: exodus
Q: Where in the constitution do you find a requirement for the President to seek a declaration of war from Congress prior to going to war?
Regards, Boot Hill
# 263 by Boot Hill

*************************

There is no requirement for the President to seek permission from Congress to go to war.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 says that the power to declare war belongs to Congress.

The power to declare war is a Legislative power.

It is not an Executive power.