Rand Paul's new article "Opposing Unconstitutional Wars" criticizes Romney

[jct74]

Opposing Unconstitutional Wars
By Sen. Rand Paul
June 19, 2012 4:00 P.M.

Much has been speculated and written since my endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. Many in the liberty movement and my longtime supporters wondered if, as a result of endorsing someone for office, I would stand up to them when they went astray.

The question to me is as strange as the answer is simple: Yes, strongly. Every time.

I have always done what I believe and I have never been blinded by party. In my time in the United States Senate, I have opposed the USA Patriot Act, voted against the NDAA over indefinite detention, fought to end mandatory minimum drug sentences, and voted against my party’s official budget because it didn’t cut enough spending.

I introduced a resolution against an unconstitutional war in Libya, and tried to repeal the authorization for the unconstitutional war before that in Iraq.

I don’t believe any fair look at my record will show blind partisanship — or partisanship of any kind. I have worked with Senate Democrats on civil liberties, and the House Black Caucus on the drug war. I have fought alongside the ACLU on civil liberties, and at times, I have fought all by myself on federalism issues.

I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy. I am afraid if that chokehold is not released quickly, our country may quickly follow Europe into destruction. Anyone who doesn’t believe there is a difference between the two candidates on economic issues is simply not looking or not being honest with their assessments.

Where I don’t know if there is as much of a difference as I would like is foreign policy.

Let’s first be clear: President Obama was elected on a platform of ending wars, yet he has opposed every effort made by me and others in the Senate to do that. He opposed my resolution to end the Iraq War. He has refused my urgings to end the war in Afghanistan more quickly. He started another war in Libya, and this time went further into unconstitutional territory than previous presidents by not even seeking Congressional approval whatsoever.

I opposed him when he did that. Anyone who believes President Obama is less aggressive internationally than his predecessors is mistaken.

I do not yet know if I will find a Romney presidency more acceptable on foreign policy. But I do know that I must oppose the most recent statements made by Mitt Romney in which he says he, as president, could take us to war unilaterally with Iran, without any approval from Congress. His exact words were:



I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.
This is a misreading of the role of the president and Congress in declaring war.

The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. The War Powers Act also clearly states that U.S. forces are to engage in hostilities only if the circumstances are “pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Absent these criteria, the president has no authority to declare war.

Even if the president believes he has such authority, the War Powers Act goes on to require the president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of conflict.

No president is above the law or above the Constitution.

Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the executive. They were quite concerned that the executive could rule like a king.

Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications, the authorization, and the motives of the war. James Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature.

I will hold accountable and oppose any actions from any president, Republican or Democrat, if he declares war without congressional consent.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303298/opposing-unconstitutional-wars-sen-rand-paul

[jkr]

RANDSLIDE!

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Okay, I was about to post this.

[AuH20]

Neoconservative traitor!!! :)

[July]

Good, Rand.

[tfurrh]

I am at liberty to vote as my conscience and judgement dictates to be right, without the yoke of any party on me... Look at my arms, you will find no party hand-cuff on them! - Davy Crockett

I have always done what I believe and I have never been blinded by party... I don’t believe any fair look at my record will show blind partisanship — or partisanship of any kind. - Rand Paul

[jj-]

We had a very good and I think honest discussion about a lot of these things and I came away from a feeling that he will be a very responsible commander-in-chief. I don't think he will be reckless, I don't think he will be rash.

:rolleyes:

[ShowMeLiberty]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303298/opposing-unconstitutional-wars-sen-rand-paul

Now that's the Rand Paul I like to see! That's the one I want continuing his work in the Senate and possibly, someday, running for president. :)

[July]

:rolleyes:

Yeah but having given Romney the benefit of the doubt, he can openly criticize without sour grapes. It shifts the focus on Romney, and his going astray.

Anyway, it's good this made front page of National Review.

[NoOneButPaul]

:rolleyes:

Don't you think he's in a better position to make that call than you?

[gerryb]

:rolleyes:


We had a very good and I think honest discussion about a lot of these things and I came away from a feeling that he will be a very responsible commander-in-chief. I don't think he will be reckless, I don't think he will be rash.

:D

Now think of how this will be received by the general GOPer. Same article, with an endorsement, and same article, without an endorsement.

Which is more effective at persuading them?

[jj-]

Don't you think he's in a better position to make that call than you?

Somebody who denies Congress must declare a war before fighting already is an extremely irresponsible commander-in-chief.

[FSP-Rebel]

Maybe the haters can step back from the cliff now.

[Cowlesy]

www.randpac.com


Anyway, an excellent op-ed by the Senator from KY.

[coastie]

Maybe the haters can step back from the cliff now.


Maybe...but I'm sure Rand knew it would only be a matter of time before he would have to do this, lol.

[specsaregood]

Somebody who denies Congress must declare a war before fighting already is an extremely irresponsible commander-in-chief.

And yet, both Obama and romney are almost equally douchey on this topic. Obama is slightly worse because he has already created a war without any declaration. romney has only used rhetoric.

[gerryb]

Maybe...but I'm sure Rand knew it would only be a matter of time before he would have to do this, lol.

Exactly. Anyone who can't see that was part of the plan.. is not going to be politically effective without putting some training wheels on..

[jmdrake]

Maybe the haters can step back from the cliff now.

They'll claim they pressured Rand into doing the right thing.

[ShowMeLiberty]

They'll claim they pressured Rand into doing the right thing.

:rolleyes:

[pcgame]

.............

[anaconda]

Neoconservative traitor!!! :)

LOL. :D

[anaconda]

I was fairly sure that the "endorsement" was no more than Rand's own personal green light to lambast Mittens at every turn. For four years if necessary.

[FSP-Rebel]

I was fairly sure that the "endorsement" was no more than Rand's own personal green light to lambast Mittens at every turn. For four years if necessary.
Funny how some people rush to judgement the way they did but didn't consider the potential upside of this "endorsement." Your point being over and above Rand using R-money, the radio mafia and the establishment drones to his advantage down the line.

[anaconda]

...

[Athan]

Romney's response: "Lol so wut? You already endorsed me doofus!"
In short, Rand's response means little if Romney doesn't really give a **** about his response and doesn't reply.

[gerryb]

Romney's response: "Lol so wut? You already endorsed me doofus!"
In short, Rand's response means little if Romney doesn't really give a **** about his response and doesn't reply.

Are we trying to influence Romney... or someone else?

[Sola_Fide]

Romney's response: "Lol so wut? You already endorsed me doofus!"
In short, Rand's response means little if Romney doesn't really give a **** about his response and doesn't reply.

I don't know. I think Rand's in a better position to criticize Romney on war issues with an endorsement. It's all a matter of what strategy you think will work the best. There are arguments on both sides.

[Brett85]

"Anyone who doesn’t believe there is a difference between the two candidates on economic issues is simply not looking or not being honest with their assessments."

I agree with this. Romney is better than Obama on economic issues when he's promised to not raise taxes, to repeal Dodd Frank, repeal Obamacare, allow for additional oil drilling, etc.

However, all of those good positions are canceled out by the fact that Romney wants to attack Iran without even getting Congressional approval. I simply won't compromise on that particular issue.

[jj-]

However, all of those good positions are canceled out by the fact that Romney wants to attack Iran without even getting Congressional approval. I simply won't compromise on that particular issue.

Purist. Did you know that you can vote for a candidate even if you disagree with him on some issues? Attacking Iran is just one issue.

[specsaregood]

I don't know. I think Rand's in a better position to criticize Romney on war issues with an endorsement. It's all a matter of what strategy you think will work the best. There are arguments on both sides.

Or, just maybe... Rand just gave Romney a valid excuse to pull off the greatest flipflop since George Bush's claim to not nationbuild...

[Mini-Me]

Are we trying to influence Romney... or someone else?

Agreed. It's not really about influencing Romney or the establishment, and it's not about influencing us either. It's about influencing regular GOP voters and protecting that influence from media slurs.

I still think the endorsement was a terrible idea due to its predictable influence on the hardcore base, because we need the hardcore base at full strength to take over local/state GOP chairman positions and the RNC. Still, I maintain hope that Rand's approach will bear fruit and warm some more Republican voters up to us.

[jj-]

I still think the endorsement was a terrible idea due to its predictable influence on the hardcore base, because we need the hardcore base at full strength to take over local/state GOP chairman positions and the RNC.

If the base is really hardcore, their support for Paul the father and Amash and other liberty candidates still to come should be enough to keep them engaged.

[Sola_Fide]

Or, just maybe... Rand just gave Romney a valid excuse to pull off the greatest flipflop since George Bush's claim to not nationbuild...

Good point. If anything, Rand's presence shows everyone in the GOP that its okay to be an anti-war, pro-civil liberties conservative.

[Bruehound]

Many people had an emotional reaction to Sen. Paul's weak, tepid and perfunctory "endorsement" of Rmoney. Those who understand the strategic benefit to this saw this article coming from a mile away. An "endorser" bitch slapping the "endorsee" carries with it extra thunder.

There will be more of this and it will be fun!

[AuH20]

Funny how some people rush to judgement the way they did but didn't consider the potential upside of this "endorsement." Your point being over and above Rand using R-money, the radio mafia and the establishment drones to his advantage down the line.

You can't buy THAT in nominal dollars. A "microphone" like this is invaluable in promoting one's platform. The first thing the neoconservative intellectuals did in the 1970s was to infiltrate the prominent conservative think tanks and publications of the day, eventually exerting their will to such a degree that all non-believers were left out in the cold.

[Brett85]

Purist. Did you know that you can vote for a candidate even if you disagree with him on some issues? Attacking Iran is just one issue.

I think there's a difference between voting for sanctions against Iran and voting to invade Iran. I don't agree with sanctions against Iran, but I would still vote for a politician who supported them. I wouldn't vote for a Presidential candidate who supports invading Iran, because that's a major issue to me. (Perhaps the most important issue.)

[Marky]

Purist. Did you know that you can vote for a candidate even if you disagree with him on some issues? Attacking Iran is just one issue.

It’s pretty much the biggest issue I can think of.

A few tax breaks vs. potential WW3…hmmm? I wonder which one will have more impact???

[Marky]

I liked that Rand wrote this piece.

But seeing those comments on NRO reminds of an oft-forgotten truth…that there are people out there who still believe the war in Iraq was a good idea:confused: Who are these idiots?

[John F Kennedy III]

Love it. Rand Paul 2016!

[CaptainAmerica]

Yes, strongly every time. This guy is full of it. Contradictions in action.

[kuckfeynes]

Talk is cheap, and trust doesn't come for free. Sanctions lead to the pain, suffering, and death of people who are just trying to survive under an already oppressive regime and want nothing to do with this fight.

I will never NEVER rationalize the oppression of innocents as "just one issue," or support someone who does. If you can rationalize that, you can rationalize anything.

If he can get to the end of his term without another debacle like that, I'll reconsider my stance. And if he slowly drifts towards more unprincipled, unethical, occasionally murderous compromises with warmongers, I'll try to keep the "told you so's" to a minimum.

[Brett85]

It's pretty depressing to read the comments on National Review. I thought the neo-conservatives within the general population were pretty much extinct, but apparently I was wrong.

[cajuncocoa]

The comments on that article should dispel any hopes that Rand will influence the warmongers.

[cajuncocoa]

It's pretty depressing to read the comments on National Review. I thought the neo-conservatives within the general population were pretty much extinct, but apparently I was wrong.You did? Evidently you don't live in a red state.

[Sola_Fide]

The comments on that article should dispel any hopes that Rand will influence the warmongers.

Maybe he won't sway those people, but at least he is providing a national platform for non-interventionism in the GOP. Someone now can say "I am a Rand Paul Republican" and get away with it. Rand is validating other candidates and voices in the GOP that have been overlooked for a while.

[Brett85]

You did? Evidently you don't live in a red state.

I do, but honestly the focus of Republicans where I live is balancing the budget and reducing the size and scope of government. I never hear much about Iran or foreign policy issues in general. I still believe there's a huge disconnect between grassroots conservatives and the neo-conservatives in Washington DC.

[ProIndividual]

Why is this a letter and not a TV interview, but he saw fit to NOT just endorse him in a letter and instead went on national TV?

Endorsement with a scream, criticsm with a whisper.

Real principled, Rand. :rolleyes:

[jj-]

I do, but honestly the focus of Republicans where I live is balancing the budget and reducing the size and scope of government. I never hear much about Iran or foreign policy issues in general. I still believe there's a huge disconnect between grassroots conservatives and the neo-conservatives in Washington DC.

As long as talk radio is dominated by warmongers like Hannity, Rush, and Levin, there won't be much of a disconnect between the base and the neocons on the most important issues.

[jay_dub]

Purist. Did you know that you can vote for a candidate even if you disagree with him on some issues? Attacking Iran is just one issue.

That happens to be an issue where people die in mass numbers. With China having a large stake in Iran, it could easily escalate. Romney has not once acted like he is even aware of this.

[phill4paul]

It's pretty depressing to read the comments on National Review. I thought the neo-conservatives within the general population were pretty much extinct, but apparently I was wrong.

Lol. Really? I guess it is a matter of geography (edit lulz) with regards to perception but it shouldn't have been with regards to votes cast towards the nomination.

[specsaregood]

As long as talk radio is dominated by warmongers like Hannity, Rush, and Levin, there won't be much of a disconnect between the base and the neocons on the most important issues.

Well, with Schiff taking over G Liddy's spot, I'd say we just took a nice bit of talk radio for our own.

[jj-]

Well, with Schiff taking over G Liddy's spot, I'd say we just took a nice bit of talk radio for our own.

Hopefully he grows an audience. I wonder if he'll get into fights with Levin at al. I perceive Schiff as being somewhat diplomatic. Trying to be like that is probably important to get clients.

[Adrock]

Well, with Schiff taking over G Liddy's spot, I'd say we just took a nice bit of talk radio for our own.

Jerry Doyle is good people too.

[specsaregood]

Jerry Doyle is good people too.
good point. we are making inroads for sure.

[LibertyEagle]

I wonder if we put a business plan together, if we could entice Peter Thiel, or someone else with money, to start a TV network.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303298/opposing-unconstitutional-wars-sen-rand-paul

[jj-]

...in an email nobody will read, after endorsing him in front of millions in Hannity. :rolleyes:

[RonPaulFanInGA]

...in an email nobody will read, after endorsing him in front of millions in Hannity. :rolleyes:

Some people really will find anyway in which to complain.

[Sola_Fide]

...in an email nobody will read, after endorsing him in front of millions in Hannity. :rolleyes:

I don't know why people are still questioning why Rand went on Hannity. It's not clear yet that he did it to speak to a specific audience?

[Bman]

Thank goodness it's a loud minority but some of you will never learn. It's all about...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOUuKQlGdEs

[EBounding]

Even in my "neo-con days", I was never comfortable that we never declared war in Iraq. I accepted it though because I thought it was "keeping us safe". Rand could actually reach people who feel the same way, simply because he's "playing along" with the party but still sticking to principle.

[TheGrinch]

...in an email nobody will read, after endorsing him in front of millions in Hannity. :rolleyes:
So when he's in public in front of a neocon audience, he shows he's not just another "fake republican" as they put it, that won't even abide by his promise to endorse the nominee, but in relative private lets us know that it doesn't change his resolve for fighting for our principles.... Man, what a scumbag traitor! :rolleyes:

[angelatc]

Romney's response: "Lol so wut? You already endorsed me doofus!"
In short, Rand's response means little if Romney doesn't really give a **** about his response and doesn't reply.

While that's how Obama ran his life of little accomplishment, that's not how Romney ran his business life. You don't broker billion dollar deals by not giving a **** about the opinions of your own team.

[MRoCkEd]

Very nice

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

Now everybody stop hating on Rand

[QuickZ06]

I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama.

I thought a vote for Romney was a vote for 8 more years of Obama policies?

[TrishW]

Rand... its ok. Romney will be back to the man of peace next time you talk to him.

[romacox]

I don't like Romney's economic policy either. He is for big government ...said he would vote for the NDAA (detention of American Citizens without due process). Goldman Sacks, J.P. Morgan, Bank Of America, ext are his biggest contributors. With that record, I do not think Romney will stand up against the Federal Reserve which is the biggest enemy to this Country. They are far more dangerous than any standing army.

Rand is correct in that we cannot afford another term of Obama. But the Republican establishment used voter fraud to force the American people to choose between two globalists (Romney or Obama). The trick is to not play their game, and to put neither of these men into office...but to put someone who will fight for liberty. I am not ready to wave the white flag yet, but respect Rand's right to do so.

P.S. I do not think we have the luxury of 4 more years before reigning in the power of the Federal Reserve. Neither Romney or Obama will oppose their goal for global governance.

[Liberty74]

I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy.

Hello Rand. What freaking planet do you live on?

Mitt Romney is the author of Obamacare. Mitt Romney supports cap and trade. Mitt Romney supports and adds trillions to our national debt assuming everything goes his way on budgeting because he does not offer one spending cut. Spending goes up every single year. Spending increased 8% per year under Mitt in Mass. Mitt wants to increase our policing of the world by adding 100,000 more troops overseas. Mitt Romney also supports NDAA, drones, TSA, etc. He does not support an audit of the FED.

So tell me Rand where you and Romney agree on that warranted an endorsement and the co-opting attempt by Romney through you of the Liberty movement?

WAKE UP PEOPLE. You are being had. This article is just another attempt of that co-opting. It's how the game is played in the two party criminal system. There is not a difference between Romney and Obama. So what does it matter if we afford 4 years of either? Oh I get it, it's all about touchy feel good bullshit stuff uh?

Gary Johnson 2012. The Republican Party under Romney with the help of Rand isn't going to do shit for us or this country. You can bank on that!!!

[Liberty74]

I thought a vote for Romney was a vote for 8 more years of Obama policies?

It is! :mad:

This is called Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment co-opting the Paul supporters through Rand Paul. Unfortunately, it seems to be working according to some posts here and it will set the liberty movement back decades. The same crap in DC will continue....more spending, more welfare, more debt, more taxes, more illegal wars, bigger police state, debasing the money, etc.

But But But "Rand proposed to legalize hemp." So???

[July]

It is! :mad:

This is called Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment co-opting the Paul supporters through Rand Paul. Unfortunately, it seems to be working according to some posts here and it will set the liberty movement back decades. The same crap in DC will continue....more spending, more welfare, more debt, more taxes, more illegal wars, bigger police state, debasing the money, etc.

But But But "Rand proposed to legalize hemp." So???

I was just about to join the LP once...I was starting to listen and become interested. Then Ralph Nader happened, and I saw how third parties were treated, and only considered to be a spoiler...that backlash pushed me back into the arms of the neocons for years. Until finally Ron Paul. Because he ran in the Republican party.

[LibertyEagle]

Liberty74, give it a rest. You've been all over this forum for quite some time arguing for 3rd parties. All you are doing now is trying to use Rand to further your cause.

Rand's voting record is pretty damned good. It's much more than legalizing hemp and you know it.

[anaconda]

But But But "Rand proposed to legalize hemp." So???

Ron Paul sponsored a bill to legalize the interstate commerce of raw milk. "So?????"

[cajuncocoa]

Liberty74, give it a rest. You've been all over this forum for quite some time arguing for 3rd parties. All you are doing now is trying to use Rand to further your cause.

Rand's voting record is pretty damned good. It's much more than legalizing hemp and you know it.Why shouldn't he argue for 3rd parties? The current two-party system we have is a lie! Both Dems and Repubs know they can take their base for granted...with the help of those who marginalize 3rd parties and their candidates, the Big Two know that leaves their base no alternative but to vote for either the Blue Team or the Red Team when the election comes around. And Rand played right into their game, too.

Those of us educated enough to support liberty should know better than to fall for it.

[LibertyEagle]

Why shouldn't he argue for 3rd parties? The current two-party system we have is a lie! Both Dems and Repubs know they can take their base for granted...with the help of those who marginalize 3rd parties and their candidates, the Big Two know that leaves their base no alternative but to vote for either the Blue Team or the Red Team when the election comes around. And Rand played right into their game, too.
Oh, he can, of course. I just take issue of him trying to use Rand in his argument. That's all.


Those of us educated enough to support liberty should know better than to fall for it.

Are you including Ron in that, cajun? Because it's Ron who suggested we get in leadership positions in the GOP, AND KEEP DOING IT.

Is he not "educated enough"?

[QuickZ06]

Oh, he can, of course. I just take issue of him trying to use Rand in his argument. That's all.



Are you including Ron in that, cajun? Because it's Ron who suggested we get in leadership positions in the GOP, AND KEEP DOING IT.

Is he not "educated enough"?

The only problem is the people in charge of the GOP aren't actually out in the open. If the strategy is to use the base the GOP already has and infiltrate it by establishing liberty minded leaders, I don't think this will ever work. I think very few men and women can be principled enough to stay on the course for liberty without being manipulated or bought off. I hope I am wrong, but I think with the amount of independents and how many people are waking up, a 3rd party is key to turning the tables and we would have a better shot at building a liberty minded base party over one that has been corrupted to the core. Just some food for thought.

[LibertyEagle]

The only problem is the people in charge of the GOP aren't actually out in the open. If the strategy is to use the base the GOP already has and infiltrate it by establishing liberty minded leaders, I don't think this will ever work. I think very few men and women can be principled enough to stay on the course for liberty without being manipulated or bought off. I hope I am wrong, but I think with the amount of independents and how many people are waking up, a 3rd party is key to turning the tables and we would have a better shot at building a liberty minded base party over one that has been corrupted to the core. Just some food for thought.

Gotcha. You don't think it will work. Ron Paul DOES. And I don't think it's a particularly banner idea to toss away all our gains at this point to go spend all our time trying to get ballot access in some new party. Which if it ever comes to fruition, will also have issues with staying on course.

[July]

But Rand is a Republican. He didn't run as a third party candidate, he made his choice. So I don't see how dragging him down is going to accomplish growth for a third party. He may not be a libertarian per se, but if the goal is to grow a third party, you get more flies with honey... The negativity is just a turn off to people who might otherwise agree or be open to you.

[QuickZ06]

Gotcha. You don't think it will work. Ron Paul DOES. And I don't think it's a particularly banner idea to toss away all our gains at this point to go spend all our time trying to get ballot access in some new party. Which if it ever comes to fruition, will also have issues with staying on course.

Like you said, Ron Paul suggested this is what we do,as it truly is in our hands. Not saying it cannot work, who knows and time will only tell. What I do know is that there are a lot of people waking up and realizing this whole two party system is a scam and the only way to send a clear message in my eyes is for a 3rd party to rise. But I guess it never hurts to have different liberty minded candidates coming in a different angles i.e. partys. As long as the ultimate goal is liberty and freedom we cannot and will not lose, that I do know.