PDA

View Full Version : Why does Ron Paul insist on a declaration of war?




sailingaway
08-14-2012, 11:03 AM
http://media.washtimes.com/media/community/viewpoint/entry/2012/08/14/fdr_declaration_of_war_s640x427.jpg?73b8e21685896c 3f2859310aaa5adb253919b641

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/aug/14/why-does-ron-paul-insist-declaration-war/

LibertyEagle
08-14-2012, 11:16 AM
Very interesting. Thanks.

ClydeCoulter
08-14-2012, 11:37 AM
Wow, what an article ! I LOVE IT :D

FSP-Rebel
08-14-2012, 11:40 AM
Somebody, please make copies and slip this into the delegates' goodie bags @ the RNC.

The Goat
08-14-2012, 04:32 PM
This is a great article. It has mixed reviews from some of the other forums I frequent though. XD, couple of shares goes a long way!

phill4paul
08-14-2012, 04:35 PM
Thanks!

CaptainAmerica
08-14-2012, 07:00 PM
U.S. Congress should not have the power to declare war without state legislatures majority ratifications for declared war. I know that Ron Paul wants to reduce the corruption in government but I believe the root of this problem is the fact that the U.S. Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war...which is BS because it cuts the states out of one of the most important events in regards to the value of life,our freedom and prosperity.

Dr.3D
08-14-2012, 07:51 PM
U.S. Congress should not have the power to declare war without state legislatures majority ratifications for declared war. I know that Ron Paul wants to reduce the corruption in government but I believe the root of this problem is the fact that the U.S. Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war...which is BS because it cuts the states out of one of the most important events in regards to the value of life,our freedom and prosperity.
But isn't Congress made up or representatives from all of the states? If those congress people are really representatives, wouldn't that mean the states approve? After all, that's why they are called representatives.

EBounding
08-14-2012, 08:23 PM
But isn't Congress made up or representatives from all of the states? If those congress people are really representatives, wouldn't that mean the states approve? After all, that's why they are called representatives.

Senators don't really represent the states nowadays. They just represent big mobs of people. People might care more about their state legislature if the 17th amendment was repealed.

This is a great article though.

Peace&Freedom
08-14-2012, 08:50 PM
The article was spectacular, the neo-con comments by the Blam Ma guy amusingly predictable. The one thing missing was a discussion about how the declaration power, as vested in Congress, is supposed to cleanly define the enemy, and the circumstances that provide closure and an exit from the conflict. That way there is no 'mission creep' or open ended wars against abstractions (e.g., terrorism).

The point behind the statists avoiding a declaration in the modern world is PRECISELY to not be pinned down at any point by constitutional limits on the context for waging war, determining the combatant, or ever exiting from the conflict. The military industrial complex thus has its endless war engine (which it was extremely upset over being interrupted after Vietnam). By technically not being at war as per the constitution, it means prisoners of war do not have to be treated like POWs under Geneva rules, thus justifying the ambiguous treatment of captives as 'enemy combatants' who can be kept indefinitely in Gitmo limbo. And so on.

ClydeCoulter
08-14-2012, 09:58 PM
Ah, fresh air..............................-APC battlezone :)

PierzStyx
08-15-2012, 02:13 AM
Senators don't really represent the states nowadays. They just represent big mobs of people. People might care more about their state legislature if the 17th amendment was repealed.

This is a great article though.

States ARE nothing more than masses of people who agree to live within certain boundaries. Senators represent the states as much as the House does, by representing the people within those states. Now whether that is a good idea is a different story altogether. But saying they don't represent the state they are from I think is incorrect.

CaptainAmerica
08-15-2012, 05:06 AM
But isn't Congress made up or representatives from all of the states? If those congress people are really representatives, wouldn't that mean the states approve? After all, that's why they are called representatives.
u.s. representatives do not represent the states when it comes to declaring war,this is one of the major issues i have with the U.S.Constitution and its many flaws in binding federal government.the u.s. representatives are supposed to manage the armies appropriations for a limited time after declaring war,but once again I point out that the state legislatures have no participation in rejecting or declaring the status of war against another nation.Had the founders really cared for our liberty they would have never given absolute power to the federal government to determine what the definition of an enemy is and the power to declare war without the consent or republican government of each state.Obviously the federalists designed the U.S. Constitution.Had the founders really wanted to give the people a founding document to bind government it would have had the processes for states to end war with a minority of ratification to end the wars by state legislatures voting and the power of the states to ratify a stripping of all war powers of the president.To further drive my point home, if the power to strip the president of war powers and end the wars through minority number of states say 1/10th of the states yes in favor of ending war...guess how quick wars would end.If it was to take 48 state legislatures not including territories to ratify a declaration of war how difficult it would be for lobbyists and how necessary the war would actually have to be just to get it to be declared.the federal government would have no power to control state declaration of war whatsoever and would only appropriate the funds for war until the states stopped them and the president with that 1/10th state ratification to end it and strip their war powers.

LibertyEagle
08-15-2012, 05:22 AM
States ARE nothing more than masses of people who agree to live within certain boundaries. Senators represent the states as much as the House does, by representing the people within those states. Now whether that is a good idea is a different story altogether. But saying they don't represent the state they are from I think is incorrect.

Most represent themselves and their own bank accounts.

If the 17th Amendment was repealed, they may again be forced to represent the states from whence they came.

kill the banks
08-15-2012, 05:38 AM
excellent read