Rand Op-Ed: Obama’s ISIS War Is Illegal

[Virgil]

For a generation, Democrats stood up against Republican presidents who they deemed to be too eager to go to war—or too ready to put troops in harm’s way without the full consent of the American people through their elected representatives in Congress.
Where have those Democratic protectors of the constitutional authority of Congress gone? Was it always just a partisan attack on Republican presidents?
If not, when will Democrats—who so vociferously opposed a Republican president’s extraconstitutional war-making powers—stand up and oppose President Obama’s unconstitutional usurpation of war-making powers?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-illegal.html

-virgil

[Inkblots]

I believe the president must come to Congress to begin a war. I also believe the War Powers Act is misunderstood; President Obama acted without true constitutional authority even before the 90 days expired, since we were not under attack at that time.

But in either case, this war is now illegal. It must be declared and made valid, or it must be ended.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-illegal.html

You tell 'em, Rand. I wonder if McConnell is on board with this...

[Ronin Truth]

WWI - Democrat POTUS

WWII -Democrat POTUS

Korea - Democrat POTUS

Viet Nam - Democrat POTUS

War party?????

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

[twomp]

WWI - Democrat POTUS

WWII -Democrat POTUS

Korea - Democrat POTUS

Viet Nam - Democrat POTUS

War party?????

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

You are missing out on a couple wars aren't you? According to your list, no war has EVER been started by a GOP president...

[dillo]

WWI - Democrat POTUS

WWII -Democrat POTUS

Korea - Democrat POTUS

Viet Nam - Democrat POTUS

War party?????

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

Wasnt Korea Eisenhower and Nixon veteoed the war powers act. Both parties are war parties, and both parties have minorities of people that are anti war. The anti war republicans have essentially vanished since Reagan.

[Ronin Truth]

Wasnt Korea Eisenhower and Nixon veteoed the war powers act. Both parties are war parties, and both parties have minorities of people that are anti war. The anti war republicans have essentially vanished since Reagan.

Nope, Truman and the UN started US involvement with Korea.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=korean+war

[NIU Students for Liberty]

WWI - Democrat POTUS

WWII -Democrat POTUS

Korea - Democrat POTUS

Viet Nam - Democrat POTUS

War party?????

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

And the proxy wars/coups that Eisenhower, Nixon, & Reagan instigated, not to mention Bush 1 & 2's love affair with the Middle East don't count?

[idiom]

And the proxy wars/coups that Eisenhower, Nixon, & Reagan instigated, not to mention Bush 1 & 2's love affair with the Middle East don't count?

lets make a list of Presidents who haven't started wars.

[Ronin Truth]

And the proxy wars/coups that Eisenhower, Nixon, & Reagan instigated, not to mention Bush 1 & 2's love affair with the Middle East don't count?

Given the comparable magnitudes and body counts, they don't really count for much.

[KEEF]

lets make a list of Presidents who haven't started wars.

That would be a great list to have in all seriousness. So seriously, what presidents have been good little doobies and not gotten their nose in anything? The first one I can think of going backwards from today is Harrison (although he was only in office for about a month and a half before dying of pneumonia).

This would be a fun list to see.

[GunnyFreedom]

That would be a great list to have in all seriousness. So seriously, what presidents have been good little doobies and not gotten their nose in anything? The first one I can think of going backwards from today is Harrison (although he was only in office for about a month and a half before dying of pneumonia).

This would be a fun list to see.

Calvin Coolidge?

[JJ2]

But in either case, this war is now illegal. It must be declared and made valid, or it must be ended.

Wrong. If it's illegal, then it must be ended immediately, until it is declared and made valid.

[tmg19103]

I totally agree with Rand, but I don't think the GOP base would agree and the War Powers Act is so confusing (and unconstitutional) to make the average voter think the president has the authority to start wars.

Rand has better battles to fight than this one. Get elected president and then make Congress vote on all these wars by saying you don't have the authority to fight them as commander-in-chief without an up an down vote in Congress.

[twomp]

Given the comparable magnitudes and body counts, they don't really count for much.

How many bodies do you need for it to be declared a "war." I mean 3,000 people were killed on 9/11. I guess you don't declare that a declaration of war on our country?

[anaconda]

"The Congress shall have the power to declare war" seems tragically ambiguous to me, notwithstanding various quotations by founding fathers not explicitly codified in the Constitution (I am reminded of Stefan Molyneux's lament that his cell phone contract is far more detailed than U.S. Constitution). The statement by Madison to Jefferson that "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” does not seem to be codified nearly this forcefully. If this was the intention, they appeared to have dropped the ball pretty badly in writing the document.

UPDATE: Good read from Tom Wood's website:

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/warpowers/

Rand might score points by reciting some of these anecdotes about how other Presidents handled military aggression with respect to Congress. I am optimistic that most people would say, if Jefferson, Madison, and Washington could do it, why can't Obama? The masses simply don't know any better.

[Ronin Truth]

How many bodies do you need for it to be declared a "war." I mean 3,000 people were killed on 9/11. I guess you don't declare that a declaration of war on our country?

Nah, that's just another typical government protection/defense SNAFUBAR.

[dillo]

How many bodies do you need for it to be declared a "war." I mean 3,000 people were killed on 9/11. I guess you don't declare that a declaration of war on our country?

Yea good point when 3000 people die the constitution goes out the window and you invade countries that had nothing to do with killing your countrymen

[devil21]

Even CNN pundits are agreeing with Rand.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/10/politi...sis/index.html

[ClydeCoulter]

How many bodies do you need for it to be declared a "war." I mean 3,000 people were killed on 9/11. I guess you don't declare that a declaration of war on our country?

By who?

[kcchiefs6465]

Wrong. If it's illegal, then it must be ended immediately, until it is declared and made valid.

If it's illegal then the president, cabinet members, and many others (anyone with reasonable culpability) ought be impeached/indicted and upon conviction put in a cage.

[devil21]

If Rand thinks Obama is overstepping his WPA authority into illegal action now, just wait until we start publicly going after the Syrian government itself. The narrative is about to change to reflect this shift toward the real goal of the entire 'ISIS' operation.

Obama: Can't defeat ISIS without removing Assad
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-seeks-re...013916944.html