Constitution Challenge

[MusoSpuso]

In a new article online there was an interesting point:


Of course, I am still waiting for Ron Paul or just one of his supporters to direct me to that part of the constitution that says America is not allowed to take preventive action against a known foreign enemy in defense of our own sovereign nation.

Does he have a point? I am aware that it is required that congress initiates war except in extenuating circumstances but how would we specifically refute this guy's claim.


Link:
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272616869.shtml

[qsecofr]

I think Ron said it best when it was brought up in the debate, he said something to the effect of "We were not attacked by a country, we were attacked by 19 thugs."

If you were robbed by a Hispanic person should you get your guns and take over Tijuana? If there was a massive buildup of Iranian troops in Cuba things might be a little different, what if England decided to bomb Ireland into the oblivion because of the whole IRA/PLO situation.

[MusoSpuso]

I think Ron said it best when it was brought up in the debate, he said something to the effect of "We were not attacked by a country, we were attacked by 19 thugs."

If you were robbed by a Hispanic person should you get your guns and take over Tijuana? If there was a massive buildup of Iranian troops in Cuba things might be a little different, what if England decided to bomb Ireland into the oblivion because of the whole IRA/PLO situation.

I agree with you completely but unfortunatley for these people the argument degrades into illogical arguments based on paranoia, fear and outright bullshit

[centure7]

In a new article online there was an interesting point:



Does he have a point? I am aware that it is required that congress initiates war except in extenuating circumstances but how would we specifically refute this guy's claim.


Link:
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272616869.shtml

Ron Paul only believes it was unconstitutional because only Congress is authorized to declare war on another country. Clearly a full scale invasion with no congressional authorization is completely unconstitutional.

[john_anderson_ii]

In a new article online there was an interesting point:



Does he have a point? I am aware that it is required that congress initiates war except in extenuating circumstances but how would we specifically refute this guy's claim.


Link:
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272616869.shtml

No, he doesn't have a point at all. Where in the constitution is the federal government authorized to go to war, for any reason, without a declaration from congress?

That's the point. The constitution doesn't state what the government isn't allowed to do. It states what the government is allowed to do. So if it's not expressly authorized, it's forbidden.

[Nickel]

Of course, I am still waiting for Ron Paul or just one of his supporters to direct me to that part of the constitution that says America is not allowed to take preventive action against a known foreign enemy in defense of our own sovereign nation.

This is simply an attempt at gotcha politics. I'm not aware that RP ever said this... what he has said is that congress must declare war. They didn't declare the Iraq war and so it's unconstitutional. Also, he suggests that we should follow the humble foreign policy of the founders which wouldn't typically -if ever- be preemptive.

Maybe we should ask him to point out where RP said this?

[me3]

It's a wild goose chase anyways.

Congress can be summoned and convened in less than 24 hours. We had plenty of time to get a declaration for Afghanistan and Iraq.

[freedominnumbers]

More importantly, when has our sovereign power ever been threatened by anyone other than our own politicians?

[angelatc]

In a new article online there was an interesting point:

Of course, I am still waiting for Ron Paul or just one of his supporters to direct me to that part of the constitution that says America is not allowed to take preventive action against a known foreign enemy in defense of our own sovereign nation.


Does he have a point? I am aware that it is required that congress initiates war except in extenuating circumstances but how would we specifically refute this guy's claim.


Link:
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272616869.shtml

It's that whole "preventative action" thing that bothers me.

[angelatc]

It's a wild goose chase anyways.

Congress can be summoned and convened in less than 24 hours. We had plenty of time to get a declaration for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

The USAF was ordered to stand down on 9/11 if the testimony is to be believed.

Nobody, Ron Paul included, said that the President did not have authority to protect the country from an imminent threat. But the neocons have a very skewed definition of "imminent."

[me3]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

The USAF was ordered to stand down on 9/11 if the testimony is to be believed.

Nobody, Ron Paul included, said that the President did not have authority to protect the country from an imminent threat. But the neocons have a very skewed definition of "imminent."
I agree. My point is that historically, there has always been time to declare war.

[DrNoZone]

No, he doesn't have a point at all. Where in the constitution is the federal government authorized to go to war, for any reason, without a declaration from congress?

That's the point. The constitution doesn't state what the government isn't allowed to do. It states what the government is allowed to do. So if it's not expressly authorized, it's forbidden.

Yep, you nailed it.

[beerista]

In a new article online there was an interesting point:

Does he have a point? I am aware that it is required that congress initiates war except in extenuating circumstances but how would we specifically refute this guy's claim.

Link:
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272616869.shtml

I don't know who this author is but I feel cheap and dirty having clicked that link.
The article begins with the sentence: Although presidential candidate Ron Paul is a life long Libertarian, he has chosen to operate within the Republican Party.
I almost didn't make it any further. From the first sentence it becomes clear that he either has a tenuous grasp of his subject matter himself or that he hopes to (mis)lead his readers to one. Just like the rest of the article, it's not exactly wrong, just misleading.
To answer your question though, he's not entirely wrong, nor do I think he intends to be. To take two of your opponent's positions, combine them, pretend you are unaware that they are separate positions, and then argue against them as though they are one is disingenuous. It's called setting up a straw man so that you can knock it down.
The two positions in question are these:
1. The invasion of Iraq and all such military measures are unconstitutional because the power to declare war rests with Congress and Congress did not declare war before the attack. A declaration of war is specific, not a blank check. There is little point for the founders to have invested such time and effort setting up checks and balances if the Congress hands open-ended authority to the President. Yes, the President is the "Commander in Chief" during time of war but this does not mean that he has the authority to launch attacks on his own say-so. This theory totally negates the explicit power of Congress to declare war. This is the Constitutional side of the argument as Dr. Paul makes it.
The requirement of a declaration of war does not ensure wisdom in either the declaration or the execution. Congress has much latitude as to whom it may declare war on. But to put the decision in the hands of a large representative body who is presumably more accountable to the people and to force this body to go on record is a way to unsure more wisdom.
On this point, the author of this article kindly makes our point for us by listing the many times US forces have seen combat since the adoption of the doctrine that the President may mobilize the military on his own say-so (so long as he doesn't call it a war against a nation), pointing out just how haphazardly we engage when a declaration of war is not required.
2. By going to war against a nation that has not attacked us and cannot attack us, we play right into the hands of our enemies by acting as Al Qaeda's recruitment wet dream. Middle Easterners who previously had no beef with the United States become radicalized, thus we create enemies faster than we can kill them. Dr. Paul's suggestion is to halt our aggression which has created the initial problem rather than to escalate it. If poking a hornet's nest gets you stung, only a neo-con would suggest that you take a baseball bat to it.