I've found a weakness in Ron Paul's argument..

[Shellshock1918]

..against the unconstitutionality of undeclared wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_e ngagements_authorized_by_Congress

Seems that even Jefferson engaged in an undeclared war. We never declared war on the Barbary States. Yet Jefferson is invoked by us Paul supporters as a model for US foreign policy.

This is a dangerous flaw in his argument. Discuss.

[brandon]

I didnt read the article, but if this is true it represents a flaw in thomas jeffersons foreign policy, not a flaw in RP

[ctb619]

Many of the founders violated their own principles....remember the Alien and Sedition Acts? This doesn't invalidate the principles, it merely shows the weakness of human nature. Just because Jefferson violated the Constitution by not seeking a declaration of war doesn't mean it is ok for others to do the same.

[theblatanttruth]

History has a bad habit of being foggy. However, what did, or did not happen in the past, should have no bearing on what Ron Paul will do in the future. He's his own man and just because he models his ideals around the perceived notion of a figures history, doesn't mean RP's argument is any less valid.

[Shellshock1918]

History has a bad habit of being foggy. However, what did, or did not happen in the past, should have no bearing on what Ron Paul will do in the future. He's his own man and just because he models his ideals around the perceived notion of a figures history, doesn't mean RP's argument is any less valid.

But his argument is bankrupt if he keeps referring to the "Founder's Foreign Policy".

[ronpaulitician]

Actually, you bring up a good point.

There's no way he's going to be able to get "but let me expand on that" followed by an explanation on his view on the Barbary States into his already limited time, but he should be prepared for a question like "Well, what about the Barbary States?"

[Qiu]

..against the unconstitutionality of undeclared wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_e ngagements_authorized_by_Congress

Seems that even Jefferson engaged in an undeclared war. We never declared war on the Barbary States. Yet Jefferson is invoked by us Paul supporters as a model for US foreign policy.

This is a dangerous flaw in his argument. Discuss.
I heard Ron delve further into this topic on the JHU mp3. He says that Congress voted to transfer Congress' own war authority to the president through Congressional resolutions and it is that disturbance of the division of powers that is unconstitutional.

[happyphilter]

Hmmm, Its been a while since history class but I'll try to explain my thoughts as best as possible.
The Barbary war stemmed from pirate attacks on U.S. Ships and trade lines, and even the capturing of sailors. This is pretty much a terrorist attack, and the United States acted in defense of its waterways. The problem is is that many of these groups acted on their own, and these states were not unified but rather just areas on the coast of North African countries. So to declare war would lead to a war with the entire country.
It would be like declaring war on Mexico because we are fighting a "war on drugs" The transitive property does not apply here.

[ctb619]

But his argument is bankrupt if he keeps referring to the "Founder's Foreign Policy".

not really....he is referring to the limits of the Constitution and GW's warning against entangling alliances, not every single foreign policy action of GW, Jefferson, Madison etc.

[Shellshock1918]

Hmmm, Its been a while since history class but I'll try to explain my thoughts as best as possible.
The Barbary war stemmed from pirate attacks on U.S. Ships and trade lines, and even the capturing of sailors. This is pretty much a terrorist attack, and the United States acted in defense of its waterways. The problem is is that many of these groups acted on their own, and these states were not unified but rather just areas on the coast of North African countries. So to declare war would lead to a war with the entire country.
It would be like declaring war on Mexico because we are fighting a "war on drugs" The transitive property does not apply here.

Thats what I was thinking, but keep going. Elaborate. We need to do this. We need to debate our own talking points to fill in holes that may seem to be in our arguments. this is good guys. Keep it up.

[john_anderson_ii]

In the first Barbary Pirate's war. War was declared on us. If war is declared on us by act or statement, is the congress still responsible for declaring war on those who declared war on us?

I wouldn't consider U.S. Frigates protecting U.S. merchant ships an act of War. Back in those days it was downright necessary for trade with anyone, and we couldn't have a constant declaration of War against 'piracy on the high seas'.




On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

[themanhere]

It doesn't matter Ron Paul basis his message on the principles of what ALL of our founding fathers envisioned. He also looks at what history has taught us.

and john_anderson_ii is right!

[Lord Xar]

But his argument is bankrupt if he keeps referring to the "Founder's Foreign Policy".

That is not true. That is like saying that a Pious Priests arguments/beliefs are morally bankrupt IF one considers all of the horrible crusades, molestations by priests have done in the past.... You can't invalidate the 'word' because those who interpret are thus. If that one Pious Priest makes reference to the bible does not make his word corrupt IF others did not have the wherewithal to live up to the standards as defined.

With your thinking you might was well throw out every religious doctrine, every single law because in the course of human history those entrusted to uphold those items have broke them at some time.

You need to think thru what you are tyring to unravel before you flop. imho.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

They had slavery too. So you could also argue that when Ron says he wants to go back to the Constitution, he wants to bring back slavery...

[jb4ronpaul]

Neither Jefferson, nor Ron Paul, nor any human being will produce anything perfect. But no matter how you look at it, it is a hell of a lot better than what we have today.

[SeanEdwards]

..against the unconstitutionality of undeclared wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_e ngagements_authorized_by_Congress

Seems that even Jefferson engaged in an undeclared war. We never declared war on the Barbary States. Yet Jefferson is invoked by us Paul supporters as a model for US foreign policy.

This is a dangerous flaw in his argument. Discuss.

Jefferson violated the Constitution more blatantly than that when he approved the Lousiana Purchase, and admitted he violated it.

He was also a guy who bloviated about freedom, while owning a whole bunch of slaves.

Point is, Jefferson was not a demigod. He was a complicated, flawed, visionary genius.

[hard@work]

How funny, I was reading his letter to Madison last night on this.

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/LETTEROFMARKANDREPRISAL

:)

[Kregener]

Speak for yourself, I NEVER evoke Jefferson when discussing Paul.

The Barbary States were not a nation, and the pirates were not a national military.

[Shellshock1918]

That is not true. That is like saying that a Pious Priests arguments/beliefs are morally bankrupt IF one considers all of the horrible crusades, molestations by priests have done in the past.... You can't invalidate the 'word' because those who interpret are thus. If that one Pious Priest makes reference to the bible does not make his word corrupt IF others did not have the wherewithal to live up to the standards as defined.

With your thinking you might was well throw out every religious doctrine, every single law because in the course of human history those entrusted to uphold those items have broke them at some time.

You need to think thru what you are tyring to unravel before you flop. imho.

I am bringing up arguments others have made towards me in response to my Constitutional argument.

[Corydoras]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

"Some legal scholars maintain that all military action taken without a Congressional declaration of war (regardless of the War Powers Resolution) is unconstitutional"

Like some other of RP's thoughts, this turns on a point of legal scholarship. The discussion may take place in murky waters; his position is clear.

[Kregener]

Well, it matters NOT how many presidents have done it, it is STILL unconstitutional, right?

[john_anderson_ii]

I'll try to keep this from becoming an outright essay, but I think very few people understand what a Declaration of War is supposed to represent.

To many people think of a Declaration of War as an authorization of the government to go to war. Which is it, but the focus of a Declaration isn't on the authorization.

Think about WWII for a moment. Women manning the factories. Food rationed and families tightening their belts. Every man capable of fighting reporting to the recruiting office. Everyone and every entity in the United States was untied in a common purpose. From the farmers growing crops, to the coal miners mining coal to be used for smelting steel.

That's what a Declaration of War should mean to the country. It means that the merits of force have been thoroughly discussed by representatives of the people. It means goals and endpoints have been set in stone. We were fight going to fight the Germans and the Japanese until they surrendered or America was no more. The Declaration ensured that The People were on board with that resolution.

Thus, more than simply authorizing the use of force, a Declaration of War authorizes a State of War within the nation. The ramifications of that State of War are what require the consent of the people. Under a Declaration, every crop in our fields, and ounce of steel in our factories are in line to support the war effort, with The People's blessing.

Without a Declaration, an action of war, even though it may be popular with The People, is just the action of a lone of a government who refuses to allow the people to be represented.

[axiomata]

*snip*
Nice essay. ;)

[maxmerkel]

..against the unconstitutionality of undeclared wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_e ngagements_authorized_by_Congress

Seems that even Jefferson engaged in an undeclared war. We never declared war on the Barbary States. Yet Jefferson is invoked by us Paul supporters as a model for US foreign policy.

This is a dangerous flaw in his argument. Discuss.

even Jefferson has some flaws. get over it, Dr. Paul is more constitutional than Washington and Jefferson combined :D

[Chester Copperpot]

..against the unconstitutionality of undeclared wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_e ngagements_authorized_by_Congress

Seems that even Jefferson engaged in an undeclared war. We never declared war on the Barbary States. Yet Jefferson is invoked by us Paul supporters as a model for US foreign policy.

This is a dangerous flaw in his argument. Discuss.

Jefferson did not attack nor did he instruct his vessels to attack... They were simply allowed to defend themselves IF they were attacked.

[trispear]

Seems that even Jefferson engaged in an undeclared war. We never declared war on the Barbary States. Yet Jefferson is invoked by us Paul supporters as a model for US foreign policy.No one man is perfect: Jefferson also kept slaves.

Remember the second president John Adams, who was a founding father and involved in the Constitution, had the blatantly unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Acts passed (described at the Patriot Act of its day in some circles):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

Perhaps RP is in the wrong... I'd have to research it more. But at least one Constitutional Lawyer considered the Iraq war unconstitutional as well:
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0402a/iraqwarunconstitutional.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bonifaz

[remaxjon]

The war with the pirates was a police action

They were attacking our ships and preventing trade. It was not a war with a country but the pirates in those states.

We have only declared war 4 times in our history. We have not declared war in the past because then we have been obligated to international law. I'm not saying I agree but it is the truth. My memory could be wrong but I believe we declared war in the spanish american war, with mexico, ww1, and ww2

[TruePatriot44]

20:20 of the following interview has the Ron Paul discussing this exact issue:

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS082207_5pm.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_-_KTLK_FM

[Matt Collins]

Blast from the past but good info here

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Blast from the past but good info here

Who would have guessed I would find your name on the bump of a long dead thread?

[fatjohn]

Hmmm, Its been a while since history class but I'll try to explain my thoughts as best as possible.
The Barbary war stemmed from pirate attacks on U.S. Ships and trade lines, and even the capturing of sailors. This is pretty much a terrorist attack, and the United States acted in defense of its waterways. The problem is is that many of these groups acted on their own, and these states were not unified but rather just areas on the coast of North African countries. So to declare war would lead to a war with the entire country.
It would be like declaring war on Mexico because we are fighting a "war on drugs" The transitive property does not apply here.

But... isn't the US fighting a war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan against many groups of terrorists but nog against a nation? Well we know better but it's a valid counterargument in the eyes of many.

[hotbrownsauce]

Jefferson sent ships in defense. His reasoning was that congress was away and wouldn't come back for a special session. He never attacked until congress came back and granted him Marque and Reprisal and at least 10 different statutes authorizing Jefferson to take action against the pirates. This was not unconstitutional.

Jefferson later on even said to congress concerning the matter of the Barbary Pirates, "Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war."

A full quote of all the text can be found here

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZTIoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA824&lpg=PA824&dq=%22intention+to+advance+on+our+possessions+unti l+they+shall+be+repressed+by+an+opposing+force.+Co nsidering+that+Congress+alone+is+constitutionally+ invested+with+the+power+of+changing+our+condition+ from+peace+to+war,+I+have+thought+it+my+duty+to+aw ait+their+authority+for+using+force.%22&source=web&ots=v9jch_78O2&sig=NfG44H4sNq7Yw5OjOUdyLpvhvhk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA824,M1

[blocks]

Actually, in Thomas Woods' '33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask,' he addresses this exact issue in the chapter dealing with the question: "Can the President, on his own authority send troops anywhere in the World he wants?"

This is from an article posted on LewRockwell.com by Dr. Woods, but is essentially what Dr. Woods wrote in his book:


Another incident frequently cited on behalf of a general presidential power to deploy American forces and commence hostilities involves Jefferson’s policy toward the Barbary states, which demanded protection money from governments whose ships sailed the Mediterranean. Immediately prior to Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that "shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct." It was to this instruction and authority that Jefferson appealed when he ordered American ships to the Mediterranean. In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to "protect our commerce & chastise their insolence – by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them."

In late 1801, the pasha of Tripoli did declare war on the U.S. Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was "unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense"; Congress alone could authorize "measures of offense also." Thus Jefferson told Congress: "I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."

Jefferson consistently deferred to Congress in his dealings with the Barbary pirates. "Recent studies by the Justice Department and statements made during congressional debate," Fisher writes, "imply that Jefferson took military measures against the Barbary powers without seeking the approval or authority of Congress. In fact, in at least ten statutes, Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Congress passed legislation in 1802 to authorize the President to equip armed vessels to protect commerce and seamen in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and adjoining seas. The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port. Additional legislation in 1804 gave explicit support for ‘warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers.’"

Consider also Jefferson’s statement to Congress in late 1805 regarding a boundary dispute with Spain over Louisiana and Florida. According to Jefferson, Spain appeared to have an "intention to advance on our possessions until they shall be repressed by an opposing force. Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force…. But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or to deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue, and will pursue with sincere zeal that which they shall approve."

That is the LewRockwell.com post, but in his book the amount of citations are staggering. I just checked and the entire text is about 260 pages plus a total of 30 pages of citations dedicated to mostly primary sources.

[Matt Collins]

Who would have guessed I would find your name on the bump of a long dead thread?And so?

[AggieforPaul]

Ron Paul is a bit of a demagogue when he constantly talks about how special the Constitution is, how special Jefferson was, etc. Truth be told, the Constitution is an illegal document under the articles of Confederation, and Jefferson signed off on an undeclared war and the unconstitutional Louisiana purchase.

Ron Paul has to say that stuff though to advance the movement. Arguing strict libertarian/minarchist ideology wouldn't get him anywhere. People have been taught in school to respect the Constitution and respect Jefferson, so Paul uses the closest things he has to libertarian ideas and people to advance his point.]

He does the same thing with Reagan even though he considers Reagan a failure. Its politics, and I'm willing to let him play the game a little.

[hotbrownsauce]

In what ways specifically do you mean it was illegal under the Articles of Confederation AggieforPaul? Please include some substance. Thanks.

[AggieforPaul]

In what ways specifically do you mean it was illegal under the Articles of Confederation AggieforPaul? Please include some substance. Thanks.

Under the AoC, it required all 13 states' votes to amend it. The Constitution only received 9 votes for ratification. It passed, because thats what the Constitution itself called for in terms of ratification (which was illegal).

It would be like if Obama said he wanted to replace the Constitution with a new document, and instead of using the 2/3's rule in the Constitution, he only needs 50.01% support for this new document.

[Athan]

..against the unconstitutionality of undeclared wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_e ngagements_authorized_by_Congress

Seems that even Jefferson engaged in an undeclared war. We never declared war on the Barbary States. Yet Jefferson is invoked by us Paul supporters as a model for US foreign policy.

This is a dangerous flaw in his argument. Discuss.

That was where they issued a Constitutional declaration of "Mark and reprisals" in which organizations that are not national entities are targeted militarily and financially without the declaration of war.

This is what is needed for Al-Queda.

[dr. hfn]

didn't jeffeson issue letters of mark and reprisal, to go after the pirates?

[hotbrownsauce]

Under the AoC, it required all 13 states' votes to amend it. The Constitution only received 9 votes for ratification. It passed, because thats what the Constitution itself called for in terms of ratification (which was illegal).

It would be like if Obama said he wanted to replace the Constitution with a new document, and instead of using the 2/3's rule in the Constitution, he only needs 50.01% support for this new document.

I meant I wanted a quote... but I think this is what you are talking about....

From the Articles of Confederation

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

We can agree every state did end up voting "yes" to the Constitution. I can't find anything that shows which states actually voted "No" or if they just didn't vote and delayed voting. Then you have the question of why did the states elect the President, George Washington, in February of 1789 before the other two states voted yes to the new Constitution (North Carolina in Nov. 1789 and Rhode Island in May 1790). The problem I have right now is that I can't find any information on how abolishing the AoC was or wasn't "legally" done (as in did they vote to abolish the AoC or not? Nothing I've seen so far clearly states it.).

I am very interested in finding out more information about this.... post what you find here.

Thanks.