Bridget,
Rand suggests that we should follow the Constitution when it comes to war. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never declared, therefore they are unconstitutional. Congress should demand that a vote be held to declare them; otherwise, they aren’t doing their job. Rand would have voted for war with Afghanistan. He would have voted against war with Iraq.
A president should never have the power to declare open-ended war. He should have the power to take emergency actions-- even secretive actions, if alerting the people poses a security risk-- where sufficient time to declare war is unavailable. We have been in Iraq for a few years and we have been in Afghanistan even longer, all with no declaration. Rand would demand that any war be declared by the 535 men and women who are supposed to do this job, not the President.
You may very well disagree with Rand's stance on this, but I hope you will consider these things:
1) The President does not have the power to declare war, he only has the power to take emergency action. Any wars fought without the consent of Congress are unconstitutional. It is an irresponsibility on the part of Congress to allow such things to go on without a vote. We put them in office to do their jobs, right?
2) We MUST follow the Constitution. If we do not, we should not complain when people destroy the other half-- the half we like-- a few years down the road.
3) Since our troops take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, they are being forced to break that oath when the attend an unconstitutional war. We owe it to them to follow the Constitution on such a life-and-death matter.
4) Rand is running for a single Senate seat. How many Senators have suggested we should declare our wars? How many men in Washington care what the Constitution says? We should demand that they all follow the Constitution.
5) If the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fine with our president, who spoke out against them during his Presidential campaign, it should be assumed that they would pass through his lapdog Congress with ease. Whether or not they would pass a vote should not even be a concern; Congress is just letting it slide because they know the wars are not popular.
6) Rand is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. An isolationist believes in protectionism. Rand supports free trade with all countries, entangling alliances with none.
7) The troops donated overwhelmingly to Ron Paul's Presidential campaign; more than all other Republican candidates combined. If the troops overwhelmingly support Ron's unique stance, who are we to say that they are wrong?
8) The United Nations cedes our power by requiring that any war we declare be passed by them first (not that we follow that rule). We could achieve the same objectives without this massive organization, and we could save a lot of money and resources in exiting it.
To the left, we have a man who MIGHT follow the Constitution, MIGHT be a real Conservative and MIGHT vote against tax increases and unbalanced budgets, but almost certainly WILL vote the status quo on foreign policy. To the right, we have a man who WILL put the Constitution first, WILL fight for Conservatism and WILL vote against all tax increases and unbalanced budgets, but has some questions about the way we’ve been handling foreign policy. Personally, I’m going right.
Let’s not forget that Rand has pledged the things you are hoping Grayson stands for. Let’s not forget that while Grayson was supporting Clinton, Rand was establishing Kentucky Taxpayers United. Let’s not forget the voting records of the 23 RINOs -- most supported TARP-- who are using the NRSC to raise money for Grayson; what is their motive in interfering with the primary? Let's not forget
Grayson attended the leftist Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies with Michael Steele in 2005. Let’s not forget these things, because they are most certainly important.
Connect With Us