The Constitution, in Section 8, never authorizes military action aside from "declaring war, and granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal". Since the 10th Amendment clearly states that any power not granted to the United States via the Constitution belongs to the people and is not a right of the federal government, it stands to reason that the only two valid military actions are a Congressional approval for Letters of Marque, or a congressional approval of war. Unless there is another authorization for the power to act militarily somewhere in the Constitution, that makes the above mentioned options the only powers available for military action. This has been adhered to in this country up until the last few decades for some reason. Congress needs to declare war before military action takes place. Most of us will make the exception (Ron Paul included) that in a time of necessity, actions in the best interest of the country are permitted if consulting Congress cannot occur in a feasible timeframe, but essentially the President is opening himself up to impeachment if he crosses the boundaries too much there. The point Ron Paul made in the debates today is that never has there been an imminent necessity for our country to act militarily without time to consult Congress, and that in a situation like Iran, a nuclear factory doesn't just move overnight. His main point is that in almost anything conceivable with relation to Iran, there will be ample opportunity to consult Congress, so we should not think about scaling up military action without Congressional approval.
unless there is another institution that has the authority to declare war than in order for the US to enter a war it needs the congress' approval
War powers act defines how the constitutional power can be used. The constitutional powers are useless without the accompanying acts to decide how they work. Here's some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress
I'll say it again. War Powers Act. Read it. Please before you spout off on things you don't understand.
That's the states right amendment. Come on man. This defines what powers the states have and what powers the feds have. The goal is to give states autonomy so they don't have to go begging to uncle sam to do things within their borders. The feds make war. States do not. *cough* war powers act *cough* http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm This clearly defines how the military can be used and by whom. A declaration of war is -not- necessary for military forces to be used. Giuliani followed up with the correct counter point. If we had actionable intelligence that a pre-emptive could have stopped 9/11 from occurring - we'd be in the right to blow some people up. Congressional approval not needed, only consultation per the war powers act. Unless you want to claim that it's better we are attacked than to violate some made up congressional power; go ahead. I'd love to hear this argument.
Listening to the FBI agents' warnings about these guys would have prevented 9/11. http://www.reason.com/news/show/36676.html Of course, the only answer the usual suspects can think of is further consolidation of their power.
Actually, Giuliani claimed that 9/11 was an example of an imminent threat, then spoke about Pakistan and Afghanistan. But Paul was correct, in that like Pearl Harbor, we didn't have the necessary intelligence or made use of the available intelligence to preempt the attack. Not to mention that if we were going to hit Al Queda first, we would have had to attack them in America, because they were here for weeks before the attack. Ron Paul already answered on imminent threat. Rudy just tried to play the 9/11 card like he always does, and as usual, he used it incorrectly. Apparently he still hasn't read the 9/11 commission report.
No doubt. Hindsight is 20.20. An active immigration service would have stopped it too; given that (if memory serves) 13 of the hijackers were here illegally after their student visas expired. If that had been followed up on and they had been removed; it wouldn't have happened either. Hindsight always tells you exactly what you should have done. That's besides the point. And out of the scope of the point as well.
That's not the point, guerilla and you know it. Be honest. The point is that -if- you have actionable intelligence the president has the ability to take action. Ron Paul was arguing against that, saying we needed a declaration of war, which we do not. Romney will discuss with his lawyer and let us know what he thinks.
That is not correct. I watched the debate twice. Paul never argued against imminent threat. He argued against consulting lawyers instead of following the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act Here is some reading yourself. An act itself even if 'defining' does not trump the constitution. Many including Ron Paul feel the war powers act is 'gasp' unconstitutional. No reply to how the republicans had a much diferent take on reality when Clinton used the war powers act by the right wingers I see. BTW from your own link.
The problem is many high-ranking government officials refuse to enforce reasonable laws or use the resources available to them (e.g., the FBI), and when disaster strikes, they demand more powers.
To get back on Subject of the debate a little bit...does anyone in here think that Fred should have skipped all the debates? I was pleased at his answers, but not "blown away" by them.
I thought the subject of the thread was "Ron Paul Owns Them Again." I can see the confusion since this thread's title is defective.
It is...and where did Ron Paul get owned? Why that would be in the debate. Therefore bringing the subject back to the debate and away from the Constitutional or Unconstitutional aspects of the War Powers Act is bringing it back on subject. The problem here is that good liberals like yourself love to change the subject, that way you don't have to face the truth.
A feeling doesn't make it so. The act actually limited what the president could do without congress after the vietnam war. So if you don't like the war powers act, you are essentially wanting the government to have more power in terms of making war, because prior to this act there was little need to talk to congress unless you were going to actually declare war. So, in some sense, if you are against the president willfully blowing up countries, you should be in favor of the act. Right? I didn't see your post. But here'd be my point. Clinton's use of the act (kosovo and somalia, right?) did not involve any group/country that was of a national interest or a threat to national security. Kosovo was a european problem - and because the republicans raised a fuss he was pretty much forced to fight it from 10,000 feet where no one was gonna get hurt. somalia was a disaster all around - it used the military for something it was never intended to be used in the first place. Refusal or incompetence. Given the many situations over the many years of the FBI/CIA, I'd go with the latter. Right? I know you choose refusal because of trutherism, but I'd go with Occam's Razor here, as always
Actually the act gives power to the president that according to the constitution he does not have. Congressional power that can not be given away. Just because something hasn't been ruled unconstitutional doesn't mean someone shouldn't call it so if it is, IMHO and alot of others it in fact is. Thank you for responding. The republicans actually used it against him even for bombing Iraq the so called huge threat by the Republicans now. The case trully doesn't matter unless there is an imminent threat though, which none were. I do not believe Clinton was in the right one bit, I fought him every step of the way there BTW as well. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/ The point behind only congress having the power to declare and authorize war was a common drum beat by the republicans versus Clinton. I know this because I was one of them...
I think you are ignoring the presidential powers under the constitution. He is the commander in chief: If you want to interpret this strictly, you could argue that the president has the power to blow up any country he feels like. He only needs congressional authorization to "declare war". So the war power act constricts this, doesnt it? War powers was passed as a result of the vietnam war. So you can see its intent, right there. If truth be told, my main beef with Clinton bombing Iraq is that he was doing it when politically opportune. Needed to distract from a scandal? Launch a missile at Iraq or blow up a medicine factory in Afghanistan. He wasn't seriously engaging the threats in Iraq or Afghanistan at all. So, you could possibly argue he was mis-using his powers. I agree that a lot of the hub-bub is entirely political. Especially in light of the powers. Republicans moan when democrats do things. Democrats moan when republicans do things. It keeps each side honest. I wouldn't really take the objections so seriously as you are doing, here. The powers are defined pretty clearly. Congress, if it doesn't like what the president is doing, can defund an operation or censure, whatever.
I have a suspicion that Ron Paul knows more about the constitution than the rest of the guys on that stage combined.