BREAKING: Rand Paul Calls for a Formal Declaration of War Against ISIS

[Brian4Liberty]

TEXT OF RESOLUTION

TEXT OF RESOLUTION:

Whereas Article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution provides, ''The Congress shall have the Power to . . . declare war'';

Whereas President George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, lectured: ''The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress. Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.'';

Whereas James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: ''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.'';

Whereas James Madison wrote in his Letters of Helvidius: ''In this case, the constitution has decided what shall not be deemed an executive authority; though it may not have clearly decided in every case what shall be so deemed. The declaring of war is expressly made a legislative function.'';

Whereas the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State has declared war on the United States and its allies; And

Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and

Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and consulate in Erbil, Iraq:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ''Declaration of War against the Organization known as the Islamic State''.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE ISLAMIC STATE.

(a) DECLARATION.-The state of war between the United States and the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the United States Constitution.

(b) AUTHORIZATION.-The President is hereby authorized and directed to use the Armed Forces of the United States to protect the people and facilities of the United States in Iraq and Syria against the threats posed thereto by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.-

(1) SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.-Nothing in this section shall be construed as declaring war or authorizing force against any organization-

(A) other than the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); or

(B) based on affiliation with the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(2) LIMITATION ON USE OF GROUND COMBAT FORCES.-Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the use of ground combat forces except-

(A) as necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger posed by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS);

(B) for limited operations against high value targets; or

(C) as necessary for advisory and intelligence gathering operations.

(d) WAR POWER RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.-

Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.-Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ.

The authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.

SEC. 4. NO EXISTING AUTHORITY.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) does not provide any authority for the use of military force against the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, and shall not be construed as providing such authority.

SEC. 5. SUNSET OF 2001 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) shall terminate on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.

SEC. 6. EXPIRATION.

The declaration and authorization in this joint resolution shall expire on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.
...
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1249

[Brian4Liberty]

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ.

The authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.

Nice.

[satchelmcqueen]

$#@! I didn't realize ISIS had boots in Georgia raiding peach farms.

they did threaten to come over here and do us harm. they actually made the threat a few months ago. as anti war as i am, i consider that a threat we cant ignore. the problem though is, just how to we determine who isis is and when it will be over.

[JJ2]

What percentage of the 99 would be "It doesn't go far enough" vs. "It goes too far?"

100% would be "it doesn't go far enough" in the sense that it repeals the two AUMFs!

[jmdrake]

Still the wrong tactic. A Non State Entity needs Marque and Reprisal. Per the Jeffersonian doctrine of M&R you can use military special forces providing they are Department of the Navy. In fact, the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R would be 100-fold more effective at actually eliminating ISIS than any Declaration of War. Elimination of ISIS is surgery. War is a sledgehammer. You perform surgeries with a scalpel (M&R) performing surgery with a sledgehammer does more harm than good.

I fully suspect he is doing what Ron did for OIF, but if there were to be a legitimate need to eliminate ISIS, then it needs to be the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R.

Seems Great Britain got the memo WRT to special ops.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...g-quad-4678493

[phill4paul]

Still the wrong tactic. A Non State Entity needs Marque and Reprisal. Per the Jeffersonian doctrine of M&R you can use military special forces providing they are Department of the Navy. In fact, the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R would be 100-fold more effective at actually eliminating ISIS than any Declaration of War. Elimination of ISIS is surgery. War is a sledgehammer. You perform surgeries with a scalpel (M&R) performing surgery with a sledgehammer does more harm than good.

I fully suspect he is doing what Ron did for OIF, but if there were to be a legitimate need to eliminate ISIS, then it needs to be the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R.

X1000. Even the concept of re-introducing M&R would make him stand out heads above the rest.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

they did threaten to come over here and do us harm. they actually made the threat a few months ago. as anti war as i am, i consider that a threat we cant ignore. the problem though is, just how to we determine who isis is and when it will be over.

And what about all the other nations that have made threats against the U.S. such as North Korea, Russia, Iran, etc? Should the U.S. government steal from me in order to fund military operations against those "threats", thus creating more devastation in the process?

[Tywysog Cymru]

they did threaten to come over here and do us harm. they actually made the threat a few months ago. as anti war as i am, i consider that a threat we cant ignore. the problem though is, just how to we determine who isis is and when it will be over.

If a group of Americans were threatening Switzerland, I highly doubt Switzerland would send people to America to take them out.

[JJ2]

And what about all the other nations that have made threats against the U.S. such as North Korea, Russia, Iran, etc? Should the U.S. government steal from me in order to fund military operations against those "threats", thus creating more devastation in the process?

Agreed, just because someone threatens us doesn't mean they are a threat.

[Uriah]

If this is ever voted on either way the chips fall this will be a major problem for the executive branch. First, if it succeeds then the war is defined and then has a foreseeable end. If it fails then it can be said the president is directly ignoring the voice of the people through congress and his actions are illegal. I like the way the bill is written. I wouldn't vote for it because I don't support this war and see no need. Although, it really pins everyone down to their vote.

The worst case scenario is the bill changes to something horrible that actually passes and this sham continues.

Also, I would be much more comfortable with letter of marque and reprisal if congress sees ISIS as a true threat to Americans.

[GunnyFreedom]

X1000. Even the concept of re-introducing M&R would make him stand out heads above the rest.

I get that he is pulling a political move, and that "war" people understand while "Marque" not so much, therefore M&R would be less effective to do politics with. However, M&R would be a hundredfold more effective militarily at actually eliminating ISIS. The UK doesn't even have a formal doctrine and their SAS troops (jmdrake post 35) are more being effective than a standard infantry battalion.

If ISIS needs eliminating, it needs to be M&R. If all we're doing is calling out McCain, Graham, and Obama as hypocrites, then "war" is a word people understand better.

[GunnyFreedom]

Seems Great Britain got the memo WRT to special ops.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...g-quad-4678493

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again."

Aye, this is what works against this kind of enemy.

[Crashland]

If this is ever voted on either way the chips fall this will be a major problem for the executive branch. First, if it succeeds then the war is defined and then has a foreseeable end. If it fails then it can be said the president is directly ignoring the voice of the people through congress and his actions are illegal. I like the way the bill is written. I wouldn't vote for it because I don't support this war and see no need. Although, it really pins everyone down to their vote.

The worst case scenario is the bill changes to something horrible that actually passes and this sham continues.

Also, I would be much more comfortable with letter of marque and reprisal if congress sees ISIS as a true threat to Americans.

Absolutely. It is a win-win, whether the bill succeeds or fails (unless as you said, if it changes into something else). Very smart move by Rand, I applaud this maneuver.

[twomp]

they did threaten to come over here and do us harm. they actually made the threat a few months ago. as anti war as i am, i consider that a threat we cant ignore. the problem though is, just how to we determine who isis is and when it will be over.

Are you consistent with this or are you just doing what the media is telling you to do? North Korea "threatens" us every other week and they have a nuclear arsenal. I don't see you yelling at the top of your lungs to bomb North Korea? Or are you waiting for the media to tell you that "North Korea is a threat" before you overreact and hide under your bed? You are only scared of ISIS because the media told you to be scared.

[twomp]

On a side note, its so hypocritical that the "pro-life" people and the bible thumpers on these forums agree with Rand Paul on preemptive war. Didn't Jesus say "turn the other cheek?" I didn't remember Jesus saying, "hey these guys might pose a threat in a few years, let's bomb them before they bomb us!"

The whole "get them before they get us" is a Neo-con argument for war that you guys are now starting to use.

[alucard13mm]

Are you consistent with this or are you just doing what the media is telling you to do? North Korea "threatens" us every other week and they have a nuclear arsenal. I don't see you yelling at the top of your lungs to bomb North Korea? Or are you waiting for the media to tell you that "North Korea is a threat" before you overreact and hide under your bed? You are only scared of ISIS because the media told you to be scared.

ISIS is an off shoot of AL Qaeda, an organization that did attack US soil. North Korea never attacked US soil ever.

[phill4paul]

they did threaten to come over here and do us harm. they actually made the threat a few months ago. as anti war as i am, i consider that a threat we cant ignore. the problem though is, just how to we determine who isis is and when it will be over.

The CIA, state department, MIC, Pentagon etc........... It will never be over. There is money in fear.

[kcchiefs6465]

As if Air Support can win a war short of vitrifying the entirety of that region (which no one is going to risk as it would quite possibly be the end of this planet if it did occur). And even then (vitrifying that region without a nuclear apocalypse being had), lone wolf attacks for reprisal would still occur.

Stupid as hell.

I might actually donate to Rand Paul should he decide to take up arms against ISIS his damn self.

[twomp]

ISIS is an off shoot of AL Qaeda, an organization that did attack US soil. North Korea never attacked US soil ever.

ISIS just RECENTLY joined up with Al-Nusra which is an Al Qaeda off shoot long after the bombings started so no, they aren't an "Al-Qaeda" off shoot. Nice attempt, try again. John McCain has helped Al Qaeda more than ISIS.

[Rudeman]

I think some of you are missing the point Rand is trying to make. The focus isn't on ISIS (if Rand viewed them as a real/serious threat he wouldn't have placed limitations on the use of force and he wouldn't have placed a 1 year end date). What it does is repeal the 2001 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF which is the real objective of the declaration.

Either Rand repeals the 2001 & 2002 AUMF or he gets people on the record opposing the declaration of war against ISIS. No way congress will pass this, so Rand will just use it as a way to show he isn't an isolationist.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think some of you are missing the point Rand is trying to make. The focus isn't on ISIS (if Rand viewed them as a real/serious threat he wouldn't have placed limitations on the use of force and he wouldn't have placed a 1 year end date). What it does is repeal the 2001 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF which is the real objective of the declaration.

Either Rand repeals the 2001 & 2002 AUMF or he gets people on the record opposing the declaration of war against ISIS. No way congress will pass this, so Rand will just use it as a way to show he isn't an isolationist.

Why wouldn't Congress pass this? Because of the deadline? The people would probably support such a bill (bombing ISIS). Considering that probably 30 or 40% of those here would, I'd say that 75% or so of the general public would support such an effort. Even without the AUMF it is well known and the precedent established of using the War Powers Resolution to start proxy wars on indefinite timelines. Same as the CIA "prepares the battle space" dodging Congressional oversight and doing whatever the hell they want. Which includes toppling governments, and creating a reason that 'the people' will want to go into a given area.

What have the Generals said about the key to eliminating ISIS? Has any one come out and said that airstrikes alone could possibly accomplish the job? The collateral damage and the image of violating sovereignty will create a danger greater than ISIS could ever be. This is really depressing to be discussing this, here, in this day and age.

[GunnyFreedom]

On a side note, its so hypocritical that the "pro-life" people and the bible thumpers on these forums agree with Rand Paul on preemptive war. Didn't Jesus say "turn the other cheek?" I didn't remember Jesus saying, "hey these guys might pose a threat in a few years, let's bomb them before they bomb us!"

The whole "get them before they get us" is a Neo-con argument for war that you guys are now starting to use.

It looks like you found ONE GUY who is OK with going off to war with ISIS, and so far as I know I don't believe he matches your qualifications anyway. You might want to put down the broad brush.

[GunnyFreedom]

Why wouldn't Congress pass this? Because of the deadline? The people would probably support such a bill (bombing ISIS). Considering that probably 30 or 40% of those here would, I'd say that 75% or so of the general public would support such an effort. Even without the AUMF it is well known and the precedent established of using the War Powers Resolution to start proxy wars on indefinite timelines. Same as the CIA "prepares the battle space" dodging Congressional oversight and doing whatever the hell they want. Which includes toppling governments, and creating a reason that 'the people' will want to go into a given area.

What have the Generals said about the key to eliminating ISIS? Has any one come out and said that airstrikes alone could possibly accomplish the job? The collateral damage and the image of violating sovereignty will create a danger greater than ISIS could ever be. This is really depressing to be discussing this, here, in this day and age.

OK, maybe 2 or 3 at most. Where are you getting this 30-40% figure?

[twomp]

It looks like you found ONE GUY who is OK with going off to war with ISIS, and so far as I know I don't believe he matches your qualifications anyway. You might want to put down the broad brush.

There is more than ONE guy who supports bombing ISIS. Would you like me to P.M. you their names as I prefer not to call people out in public. These people are also the ones who claim to be "conservatives" who love Jesus.

[twomp]

OK, maybe 2 or 3 at most. Where are you getting this 30-40% figure?

Sounds like it's time for another poll. There is definitely more than 2 or 3 "at the most." They support Rand Paul and Rand Paul supports air strikes. That alone should tell you there are more than "2 or 3" people who support attacking ISIS.

[GunnyFreedom]

There is more than ONE guy who supports bombing ISIS. Would you like me to P.M. you their names as I prefer not to call people out in public. These people are also the ones who claim to be "conservatives" who love Jesus.

Maybe I'm lowballing a little, but it's hard not to kneejerk when people are unjustly calling out near half the forum as warmongers. 11k users active in the last 24 hours. *30% = 3300. I'm supposed to believe there are 3300 warmongers running around here? c'mon...

[kcchiefs6465]

OK, maybe 2 or 3 at most. Where are you getting this 30-40% figure?

Well I've read quite a bit more than 2 or 3.

40% was a number out of my ass though. I barely am on here anymore. Maybe it's just a false perception I got?

[Crashland]

Sounds like it's time for another poll. There is definitely more than 2 or 3 "at the most." They support Rand Paul and Rand Paul supports air strikes. That alone should tell you there are more than "2 or 3" people who support attacking ISIS.

Do we have a poll for this? If not, seems like a reasonable way to see where the RPF community lands on the spectrum, as long as the poll is fairly constructed. I would tend to agree with Gunny, I would be very surprised if it turned out anywhere near 30-40%

[kcchiefs6465]

Do we have a poll for this? If not, seems like a reasonable way to see where the RPF community lands on the spectrum, as long as the poll is fairly constructed. I would tend to agree with Gunny, I would be very surprised if it turned out anywhere near 30-40%

I think there was a poll and the results were all but a few against bombing ISIS. The wording wasn't too good and regardless, if I recall correctly, the very people voting that they didn't support airstrikes had post after post in other threads that'd call their votes into question.

Don't much care to look for it, though.

I can certainly see that the fear propaganda is working.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well I've read quite a bit more than 2 or 3.

40% was a number out of my ass though. I barely am on here anymore. Maybe it's just a false perception I got?

It's easy enough to do when faced with an issue one is deeply passionate about. It's extremely difficult to submerge preconceptions on important issues, and those do color the way we perceive an ambiguous statement. And being an internet message board, more statements are ambiguous than not. That's just the nature of the beast.

WRT a poll, making it anonymous will skew it inaccurately towards warmongering since there will always be a handful of jokers trolling, while making it public will skew it inaccurately towards anti-war since there are likely to be people who may support bombing but are ashamed to admit it publicly. Also on this particular issue it will be difficult to avoid wording the questions in a way that presupposes an outcome.

I would honestly be surprised if the number of true intervention supporters around here was larger than 6-8%. But again, how a question is worded can have a dramatic effect on the actual polling. F-U Frank!