35 votes

Sen Paul and Rep Amash on Syria: Only Congress can Declare War

Senator Rand Paul released a statement today in response to President Obama’s threat of using military force against Syria.

"The Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress not the President.

The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States."

This is in stark contrast with Rep. Peter King (R-NY) who told CNN,

"I believe the president can take the action without authorization from the Congress…I believe as commander in chief, he has the right to take the action. It’s in his interest to consult with the leadership in the House and Senate, but I don’t believe he has to."

In the past, both President Obama and the vice president are on record insisting that congressional authorization was required under President Bush. Why wouldn’t President Obama want the backing of Congress before starting hostilities with Syria now? Rep. Justin Amash has his theory...

Read more: http://iroots.org/2013/08/28/rand-paul-and-justin-amash-on-s...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

King is full of baloney.

The commentator this morning challenged him on the War Powers Resolution and he danced around the answer. The resolution allows the president to authorize armed forces only by authority of congress or an attack on the U.S. or our territories. King and others argue that missile strikes are not "armed forces".

Just playing devil's advocate

Just playing devil's advocate here but I've heard a lot of people on the left use the War Powers resolution as an excuse for the POTUS to extend military action as a police action for up to 60 days w/o consent of congress. Although reading the document closer it does say he must seek congressional approval, but later on in the document it kind of goes against what it said originally so... basically can someone break it down for me ?

Tom Woods Puts it Best


There was a back-and-forth between Tom Woods and Mark Levin over the War Powers Act.

This article links to the blog posts of both Woods and Levin regarding this act when Libya was the next target of the neo-Conservatives.


This is also a great video article which also contains a written article (a different one!) that Woods goes on to explain the "phony presidential war powers."

It's very enlightening. Enjoy.

Something Johnson made up to invade Vietnam

Unfortunately it set a precedent and now its a cop-out for war hungry presidents to use. Rand and Justin are trying upend that precedent, and they need our support and the left wing too


and LBJ got it from Truman and from that point forward the War Powers Act has been turned on it's head.

Rand needs to lead here

He needs to threaten impeachment of Obama if he bombs Syria


"A Vote Would Fail"

which was the intention of the founders of this republic as a protection against tyrants in the Oval Office abusing their limited power to execute a war after approval by the US Congress. This current meddling in Syria by the Obama administration is a perfect and stark case for repealing the blatantly unconstitutional War Powers Resolution.


92 House members (76 Republicans and 16 Democrats) have signed a letter demanding that President Obama seek congressional approval before taking military action against Syria.

Both Rep. Thomas Massie and Amash are supporting a bill “to restrict funds related to escalating United States military involvement in Syria.”



Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods