jct74
09-10-2013, 07:51 AM
read it and vote it up at the link
Rand Paul: Obama's Blunders Shouldn't Lead to a New War
By RAND PAUL , Republican Senator from Kentucky
September 10, 2013
Intervention in Syria is largely unpopular among Americans. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll reports that only 9 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. should intervene. Understandably, Americans are not eager to be plunged into another questionable or misguided war.
So I was encouraged when I learned that President Obama had decided to seek authorization from Congress before taking military action against Syria. Yet, before I could even applaud him for that decision, I heard that President Obama still might attack Syria even if Congress rejected his request. I felt as if he was treating us as a joke and I have no interest in being part of this administration's political theater. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I intend to keep it. I expect the same of the President of the United States, no matter which party he belongs to.
The Founders' rightly recognized that the power to make war should not be in one person's hands, particularly the president's. James Madison wrote: "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."
The president has a responsibility to the people and to their elected representatives to abide by the constitutional restraints placed on his office. We have this system of checks and balances in place so that no branch of government would ever be powerful enough to do as it pleased arbitrarily against the rule of law or will of the people as expressed by Congress.
...
read more:
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-congress-vote-to-strike-syria/rand-paul-obama-should-not-override-congress-on-syria
Rand Paul: Obama's Blunders Shouldn't Lead to a New War
By RAND PAUL , Republican Senator from Kentucky
September 10, 2013
Intervention in Syria is largely unpopular among Americans. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll reports that only 9 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. should intervene. Understandably, Americans are not eager to be plunged into another questionable or misguided war.
So I was encouraged when I learned that President Obama had decided to seek authorization from Congress before taking military action against Syria. Yet, before I could even applaud him for that decision, I heard that President Obama still might attack Syria even if Congress rejected his request. I felt as if he was treating us as a joke and I have no interest in being part of this administration's political theater. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I intend to keep it. I expect the same of the President of the United States, no matter which party he belongs to.
The Founders' rightly recognized that the power to make war should not be in one person's hands, particularly the president's. James Madison wrote: "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."
The president has a responsibility to the people and to their elected representatives to abide by the constitutional restraints placed on his office. We have this system of checks and balances in place so that no branch of government would ever be powerful enough to do as it pleased arbitrarily against the rule of law or will of the people as expressed by Congress.
...
read more:
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-congress-vote-to-strike-syria/rand-paul-obama-should-not-override-congress-on-syria