PDA

View Full Version : Authorization for the Use of Force is not unconstitutional




paulpwns
09-11-2007, 06:44 PM
The argument over war powers is shady at best. The favor actually swings towards the president because he has complete control of the U.S military. The war powers act attempted to fix this, but it never really worked.

Why is this RP's basis of argument so much?

Check your constitution.


The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....


I hate expansive executive power as well, but this argument that they are violating the constitution isn't very sound.

Lets stick to the CLEAR violations of the 4th amendment. ( cough cough patriot act)

Qiu
09-11-2007, 06:47 PM
I don't think it's as simple as that. Being the commander in chief means you in charge of the troops- it does not mean you have a right to start wars. No general, no matter how powerful, actually has the power to start wars.

Green Mountain Boy
09-11-2007, 06:47 PM
Even if you are correct, there's still no getting around the fact that the Iraq war was/is an unjust war.

ctb619
09-11-2007, 06:48 PM
Besides, isn't he only the Commander in Chief in times of war?

happyphilter
09-11-2007, 06:49 PM
Commander in Chief is just one of the many titled roles the President can be. Commander in Chief is the title he attains in times of war.

john_anderson_ii
09-11-2007, 06:50 PM
No, the President is always at the top of every servicemen's chain of command. He always the Commander In Chief. It's actually the most important bullet on his job description IMHO.

david.griffus
09-11-2007, 06:53 PM
Check your history, bud. You are wrong.

axiomata
09-11-2007, 06:55 PM
This is an argument against Democrats trying to micro-manage the war from the congress, not an argument against Dr. Paul's assertion that it unconstitutional for give up their responsibility in declaring war so that they can't be politically held accountable. Everyone who voted for the war authorization was a political coward.

Ron Paul Fan
09-11-2007, 06:57 PM
So where in the Constitution does it say that the Legislative Branch can transfer the war power to the Executive Branch? The part you have bolded says "prescribed by Congress" not the President.

Qiu
09-11-2007, 06:58 PM
This is an argument against Democrats trying to micro-manage the war from the congress, not an argument against Dr. Paul's assertion that it unconstitutional for give up their responsibility in declaring war so that they can't be politically held accountable. Everyone who voted for the war authorization was a political coward.
Dr. Paul addressed this today as well. He said that people who vote for war authorization instead of a declaration of war are simply taking an insurance policy. If the war does not go well, they can blame the president's decision to go in. If it does go well, they can say they voted for it. If someone just voted for a declaration of war, they are responsible for the decision.

axiomata
09-11-2007, 07:02 PM
I know, I had just finished listening to his speech. ;)

Also, for those interested in the CiC part:


The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the
principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject
relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to
Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment.

Hurricane Bruiser
09-11-2007, 07:04 PM
The legislative branch does not have the authority to delegate's it's responsibility (declaring war) to the executive branch. That it was done, albeit unconstitutionally, is the main problem we are in the mess we are. It is much easier to vote to give someone else responsibility to make a tough decision than it is for you yourself to make the decision. That is why Congress is granted that power. The President simply carries the decisions of the legislative body out as Commander in Chief.

blazin_it_alwyz
09-11-2007, 07:04 PM
I want to explain something, to explain the point.

There is a coding language, that is called CSS, which stands for Cascading Style Sheets. And each sheet is filled with a bunch of rules. The point of Cascading Style sheets, is that they cascade, or in other words, there can be many many rules on different sheets, but there is always a sheet at the top of the order, that can trump other sheets.

The president may be commander-in-chief, and he can move around the army and attack and what not, but there is a set of rules that cascades over that, and replaces it with it's own, which says, congress must declare wars......... as long as that stipulation is filled, yeah the president can do whatever he wants...

It's kind of like state laws, in which federal laws cascade over them. That is at least my understanding of all of this.

SeanEdwards
09-11-2007, 07:05 PM
This is an argument against Democrats trying to micro-manage the war from the congress, not an argument against Dr. Paul's assertion that it unconstitutional for give up their responsibility in declaring war so that they can't be politically held accountable. Everyone who voted for the war authorization was a political coward.

Yep, and they violated their oath of office.

The Constitution does not grant them the authority to appoint a Ceasar and that's what they did.

derdy
09-11-2007, 07:16 PM
I want to explain something, to explain the point.

There is a coding language, that is called CSS, which stands for Cascading Style Sheets. And each sheet is filled with a bunch of rules. The point of Cascading Style sheets, is that they cascade, or in other words, there can be many many rules on different sheets, but there is always a sheet at the top of the order, that can trump other sheets.

The president may be commander-in-chief, and he can move around the army and attack and what not, but there is a set of rules that cascades over that, and replaces it with it's own, which says, congress must declare wars......... as long as that stipulation is filled, yeah the president can do whatever he wants...

It's kind of like state laws, in which federal laws cascade over them. That is at least my understanding of all of this.

Actually, when they wrote the Constitution it delegated certain powers to the federal government and prohibited certain powers which were repugnant to the States.

That's why you have the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

-James Madison, Federalist No. 45

If anyone here hasn't read The Federalist Papers (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm) or The Anti-Federalist Papers (http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/intro.html)(which I hadn't until now, finished the Federalist and working on the Anti at the moment) I strongly suggest doing so. If you have it wouldn't be a bad time to brush up on them considering our platform.:D

ChooseLiberty
09-11-2007, 07:17 PM
Is this Ron Paul news?

ThePieSwindler
09-11-2007, 07:26 PM
Wait did Ron paul not authorize use of force against Bin Laden/Afghanistan? Sure he did. Iraq is not a case where "use of force" is applicable, but rather where a declaration of war must be made.

axiomata
09-11-2007, 07:29 PM
Wait did Ron paul not authorize use of force against Bin Laden/Afghanistan? Sure he did. Iraq is not a case where "use of force" is applicable, but rather where a declaration of war must be made.
Furthermore the president may authorize force without the consent of congress. But "the use of force" is different from "War" and "The Iraq War" is not just a use of force.

paulpwns
09-11-2007, 07:33 PM
So where in the Constitution does it say that the Legislative Branch can transfer the war power to the Executive Branch? The part you have bolded says "prescribed by Congress" not the President.

yeah the Congress had a say when they voted for the AUMF. They supported it.
Paul didn't, because he actually is a leader with some foresight.

The supreme court has historically ignored the question.

Marshall
09-11-2007, 07:33 PM
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

So the President has no power over the USMC or the USAF? And while we're at it, where are the state militias?

blazin_it_alwyz
09-11-2007, 07:35 PM
Actually, when they wrote the Constitution it delegated certain powers to the federal government and prohibited certain powers which were repugnant to the States.

True you are right.

Although we all know that isn't how it works to day, unfortunately.......

Vonhayek7
09-11-2007, 07:38 PM
Paul takes the constitution interpretation more strict and builds a compeling case around undeclared wars. Declaration without congress is definitely frowned upon, and this was further reinstated with the War Powers Resolution.

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

Chester Copperpot
09-11-2007, 07:42 PM
For that matter.. having a standing army is unconstitutional as well.


PAULPWN???

As in PaulPWNED?


Are we a troll?

derdy
09-11-2007, 07:44 PM
True you are right.

Although we all know that isn't how it works to day, unfortunately.......

I think that's the biggest part about the Ron Paul campaign is to get people talking about these things and the original intent of our government which was the preservation of individual liberty. Even baby-steps towards that would be amazing.

More on the President's powers....

Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.1 The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States. -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 69 (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed69.htm)

QWE
09-11-2007, 07:45 PM
This is why using military force to go into Afghanistan to get Osama is not unconstitutional, but the Iraq War is. Nation-building is unconstitutional also.

ButchHowdy
09-11-2007, 07:50 PM
What about the false pretenses upon which this 'occupation' was launched?

trispear
09-11-2007, 07:51 PM
The argument over war powers is shady at best. The favor actually swings towards the president because he has complete control of the U.S military. The war powers act attempted to fix this, but it never really worked.

Why is this RP's basis of argument so much? In 2002 (or 2003?) Congress authorized the use of force that he (the president) deemed necessary. That is not a Declaration of War.

Can you imagine, after WW2, that Congress would have told FDR - well, you can fight the Japanese or not, your choice. That just wouldn't have been a declaration of war, just carte blanche for the president to do what he felt like. A declaration of war forces the president to fight.

Also, in RP's own words:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst101402.htm

paulpwns
09-11-2007, 07:53 PM
For that matter.. having a standing army is unconstitutional as well.


PAULPWN???

As in PaulPWNED?


Are we a troll?

It's paul pwns.

Dr paul is my hero. Why am I a troll because I made a point you didn't like?

constituent
09-11-2007, 07:59 PM
No, the President is always at the top of every servicemen's chain of command. He always the Commander In Chief. It's actually the most important bullet on his job description IMHO.

precisely the danger of a standing army.

Chester Copperpot
09-11-2007, 08:03 PM
It's paul pwns.

Dr paul is my hero. Why am I a troll because I made a point you didn't like?

My mistake.. I thought you were saying PaulPwned.

My bad.

slantedview
09-11-2007, 08:03 PM
Commander in Chief is just one of the many titled roles the President can be. Commander in Chief is the title he attains in times of war.
Yep, BUT only Congress can declare war. The separation was setup intentionally.

Chester Copperpot
09-11-2007, 08:04 PM
Yep, BUT only Congress can declare war. The separation was setup intentionally.

I would agree with that.

derdy
09-11-2007, 08:05 PM
This is why using military force to go into Afghanistan to get Osama is not unconstitutional, but the Iraq War is. Nation-building is unconstitutional also.


I would have to disagree. The Congress handed him the authority to go after any nation-state he felt was responsible for 9/11, thereby never needing to go to Congress again to go to war with anyone from here on out so long as 'Al-Qaeda' exists, since he can say they are in any country he THINKS they are in.

From the Authorization of Miltary Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists#Section_2_-_Authorization_For_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forc es)
Section 2
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

paulpwns
09-11-2007, 08:07 PM
I would have to disagree. The Congress handed him the authority to go after any nation-state he felt was responsible for 9/11, thereby never needing to go to Congress again to go to war with anyone from here on out so long as 'Al-Qaeda' exists, since he can say they are in any country he THINKS they are in.

From the Authorization of Miltary Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists#Section_2_-_Authorization_For_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forc es)
Section 2
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

I can't believe our congress passed that trash legislation.
IF our court had any balls it would challenge this legislation.

derdy
09-11-2007, 08:18 PM
I can't believe our congress passed that trash legislation.
IF our court had any balls it would challenge this legislation.


Yeah no shit. What's so amazing about it is they basically said, '9/11 was terrible and we need to retaliate, thereby we authorize the President to use whatever force he deems necessary when he figures out who done it."!!! :confused:

That was passed SEVEN days after 9/11! You think they'd do a thorough federal Congressional investigation, name the organization(s) and/or nation-states responsible THEN write this legislation thus negating the President attacking who he pleases and setting some more attainable goals.

Now I see why Ron Paul had to be pressured into signing this.

Marshall
09-11-2007, 08:24 PM
Yah... So basically all Bush has to do is point his finger at a country, and we'll invade it and occupy it. God bless congress for passing that tid bit of legislation.

Ron Paul Fan
09-11-2007, 08:24 PM
Yeah, you'll notice that the lone nay vote on Afghanistan was Barbara Lee who did say that we shouldn't rush to judgement. Anyway, Dr. Paul did put Constitutional means on the table with the Letter of Marque, but no one wanted any part of it. Now we're invovled in a nation building project and didn't even get the target. He also tried to declare war on Iraq instead of the authorization of force. Now we're involved in a nation building project and the invasion wasn't justified in the first place.

SWATH
09-11-2007, 08:34 PM
So the President has no power over the USMC or the USAF? And while we're at it, where are the state militias?

Well at least the USMC is a department of the Navy.

Politeia
09-11-2007, 09:15 PM
The Constitution does not grant them the authority to appoint a Ceasar and that's what they did.

It's Caesar, BTW, not Ceasar. Originally pronounced like the German Kaiser, which is derived from the Latin word. (The "seize her" pronunciation is a much later development, from phonetic changes through Vulgate Latin, medieval French and finally English.) And it was originally just a personal nick-name (cognomen) --meaning something like "full head of hair", which was ironic because Gaius Julius Caesar, who inherited the name from several ancestors, was famously nearly bald -- not a title; it only became the latter with Julius's rise to prominence, followed by his nephew and heir Octavianus, who became the first Emperor, known as Augustus, and also took the name Caesar to associate himself with his famous, popular uncle. And his heirs continued to use "Caesar" as a kind of title, so it became synonymous with "emperor".

The Constitution of the Roman Republic did provide for the office and function of Dictator (where we get the word), a man appointed in times of crisis with unlimited powers to steer the Republic through an emergency. This was the office that Gaius Julius Caesar occupied at the time he was assassinated. The Senate had just upped his appointment to dictator-for-life, which looked to some republicans too much like a king.

The American Republic effectively died in 1861, when Abraham Lincoln (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo127.html) declared a "state of emergency" (for which there was no provision in the Constitution) and "granted" himself emergency (i.e. unlimited) powers to rule by decree (for which there was no provision in the Constitution) -- and Congress didn't stop him.

And it was after the successful conclusion of Lincoln's war of conquest -- of all the States, not just the Confederate States, which had exercised their perfect right to secede -- that the American governmental system was turned on its head, with the federal Washington entity the master and the States (and the people) its subjects, as defined in the so-called "14th Amendment".

So none of this is anything new. Whether the government can be forced back into the cage of the Constitution by insisting on the letter thereof as written -- never formally repealed or changed, just ignored -- is the question. Worth a try, given the alternative.