Another United Nations War?

Ron Paul ^ | February 28, 2003 | Ron Paul, M.D., and a Republican member of Congress from Texas

[elfman2 on another computer]

" I'm not making up anything, just applying logical principles."

Your "logical principles" have holes that I could drive a truck through, and have at least once on this thread alone, but you just keep coming back with another angle, another claim without any expertise, training our experience and expect your proclamations of illegality to be taken seriously. Please don’t address me again.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

There hasn't been a revision of our law between Wilson's time and our own.

Yes, there has. The War Powers Act.
Besides, the President already has received authorization.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Deciding that provisions of the Constitution need to be changed is not to be decided by our leaders.

Actually, it is. It's right in the Constitution.

[inquest]

What's laughable is that you expect to be taken seriously every time you say "I don't have time for this" or some such cop out. Those are not authoritative arguments, and will not be regarded as such by anyone.

[William Terrell]

So this action is not authorized under 1-8-11. It's authorized by agreement with the UN, and presumably in accordance with some sort of treaty.

Treaties do not add or subtract powers from the US constitution not do they take the power of one branch and give it to another branch.

We've been had and you don't even know it. You support this raid on the sovereignty of the US fully and presumably don't have the knowledge to see anything wrong with it. You'll probably tell that treaties superceed article of our constitution.

[William Terrell]

Well, now, Iraq has not attacked the US, have they. Congress has plenty of time to declare war, don't they. But they are acting on UN authorization not constitutional authorization, aren't they.

And you beat the drum for this? Are you a liberal?

[Wavyhill]

Excellent point. If the Constitution had intended the President just to be the XO for the Congressmen in military matters, it would have said something like, "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, to be instructed by Congress regarding military objectives." Instead, it made the POTUS CIC, with no ifs, ands, or buts. Obviously, they wanted the President free to act alone in times of national emergency. (Not to mention that President George Washington himself sent the US Army to fight the Indians. Washington Irving writes about this).

[inquest]

Nothing about being commander-in-chief or being the executive implies having the power to set (as opposed to pursue) the objectives of a war. In fact, the word "executive" strongly implies that he's "executing" the policy set by someone else. When Congress declares war in the true sense of the word, and say nothing else, then they're effectively stating that the CinC's objective is the complete subjugation of the enemy, at least until Congress declares otherwise.

And military excursions against Indians have very little relation to wars against sovereign nations.

[William Terrell]

Do you happen to know what coments #289, 291 and 292 said? They were to me but the AM deleted them before I could get to them.

[inquest]

Hmm, looks like that dude got nuked. I'm surprised his comments didn't show up in your reply queue, since his comments to me are still in mine.

Anyway, I didn't recall seeing anything particularly nasty (at least by the standards of the general tone on this thread). From what I can remember, he took you to task for pointing out that Iraq hadn't attacked us, saying that the Constitution did not make that a requirement for going to war. He accused you of holding fast to the letter of the Constitution when it suited you, and then creatively reading new requirements when that suited your purpose. And he generally accused you of not responding to various specific points he raised, saying it was "typical" of people of our persuasion. Also, he responded to your question "Are you a liberal?" with one word: "Typical..."

I wish I could get more specific, but I really only glanced over his replies. I had pretty much given up on him after he started going around in circles with his "Congress acted according to the Constitution because they did" rigamarole.

I'd be curious to know what got him in hot water with the mods.

[William Terrell]

I'd be curious to know what got him in hot water with the mods.

I would be too. I was working him into a corner and cutting of each of his exits, then the AM pulls the comments. Frustrating. This is the not the first time they've done that to me. I'd work someone who is unclear on How Things Work into a situation where he has to either acknowledge commonsense or make a inaccuracy obvious even to him.

Then in steps the AM and wipes out the chess game.

[inquest]

I really don't think it was anything he said to you that triggered the mod reaction. It either had to be something he said on another thread, or maybe he was discovered to have been a poster who'd been previously banned and signed up under a new name. A full-scale nuking, with all posts deleted, is an uncommonly severe response. It's not something you'd get just for saying "bullfeathers".

[thepitts]

Is it too much to ask, expecting our elected representatives to follow the law?

LOL, You have to ask?