47 votes

Facts about Rand Paul's war talk

Rand Paul said that:
1. He would call a joint session of congress.
2. He would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to the US national security.
3. He would seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.

Rand Paul's statement appears to be in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, and specifically Clause 11, that only Congress has the power to declare war. Also, his statement appears to be correctly interpreting Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution.

What Rand Paul did not say is that he would seek Congressional consultation, or that, as an Executive, he already has the Constitutional authority that empowers him to declare a war alone, and therefore he would have sent troops without the proper authorization from Congress, without a clear goal, without a clearly defined and realistic exit strategy, and that Congress was to find out about the new war from the news outlets.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Nobody is faulting Rand for being unconstitutional

just for giving an inch to the NEOCON donors. His rhetoric about Israel and recently ISIS is presumably against his core beliefs and something that he thinks needs to be done to ensure he has the proper donor support to run for president.

I don't think he needs to, but I don't fully know the power of the NEOCON lobby to halt his run.

Tu ne cede malis.

Candidates for Liberty Webpage:
http://candidates4liberty.com/home.html

2016 Liberty Candidate Thread:
http://www.dailypaul.com/329012/2016-liberty-candidate-thread

Smart

Rand is smart. He knows that's why the former colonists gave the authority to declare war to Congress: they were far more likely to debate and to listen to their constituents than a mere executive. Fewer wars, for sure.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

The people refused to get involved

We almost never got involved with either WWI or WWII because this is how it "Used" to be. Then there were the false flags...

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Are Libertarians at large Afraid of a Conversation?

The point of bringing this back to the constitution and a congressional vote is important.

This country NEEDS to have the conversation about when we should go to war. This needs to be discussed in public. Congress needs to GO ON RECORD with their votes for or against war. And then Congress needs to be held accountable.

Right now, the president sends in troops and congress hides behind his chair sherking their responsibility.

Do you want to inform the public? Do you want to have this debate out in the open in this country. Do you want a constitutional republic? Or do you want a dictatorship as long as a libertarian is in office?

People HAVE to learn about these issues for anything to change. Rand has said multiple times that if we took the issue of war to congress, we would see far less war because the American public at large want it to be RARE

Just the simple act of Rand suggesting congress should make the decision concerning military action against Isis makes "following the constitution" an issue in this debate. That's an incredibly good thing! Have the debate in public and if the case isn't made for action, then vote no.

"Since Syrian jihadists are

"Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles."

- Rand Paul

What do you make of that?

http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-am-not-an-isolationist/

23

lip service

lip service

saying that you would follow

saying that you would follow the rules to go to war is not the same thing as wanting to go to war. All i see him saying is "if" he wanted to go to war this is what he would do....it doesnt say he will go to war though. hes saving face with neocons making them think hes willing to attack but cleverly disguising it as following the rules for the libertarian constitutionalist type. But he never says he is going to attack them, just what he would do if he did. I see nothing wrong with this statement, he's tricking neocons thats all

It's all madness. The only

It's all madness. The only one trying to stop armed aggression and escalation of war talk is Putin. His actions and rhetoric in Russia is far more understandable than Nato's, UN's, Us's, boycotts, sanctions, drone strikes, & bully talk. Madness!

The facts are that Rand is being attacked for being soft

on foreign policy and doesn't have the courage to point out that we are in the mess we're in because of foreign meddling. Of course that heresy would kill his political viability. The meme now seems to be "Obama squandered what Bush 'accomplishrd'". We're doomed.

Leges sine moribus vanae

War Powers Act, or Article 1 Section 8?

I differ with your view only on 1 small point: I believe his statement, the words he chose, "Congressional authorization", are more in line with the war powers act, and would result in a mere authorization to use military force. An AUMF is not a Declaration of War. If ones view is that the war powers act is constitutional, then yeah he's trying to follow the constitution. My view is an AUMF will result in a long dragged out mess, whereas a full on Declaration of War from Congress would get the job done in less than 5 years like WW2.

I think he should have chose the words "seek a Congressional Declaration of War". That would leave no doubt of his intent to abide by the Constitution. I personally agree with you, that he is trying to do just that, and I'm glad he is. (EDIT: meaning, "I'm glad he's wanting to follow the Constitution", not "I'm glad he supports going to war." I think he's being very reserved about it, and actually Obama seems to be reserved with regards to no ground troops (so far) as well about going after Isis, which is good, but he thinks the existing AUMF for the Iraq War gives him the authority.")

Lastly, I appreciate your post. Too many are bashing him, believing he betrayed us, or betrayed the NAP, or his father, or whatever. When someone else has declared war on you and murdered your people, threatening to murder many more, you don't sit there and do nothing and say "Look at me, I'm a non-interventionist. I don't believe in initiating aggression or force upon others." At that point you are not the aggressor. It's within our rights, and it is the duty of our elected officials, to defend ourselves and our country.

I say "declare it or forget it".

Which is better...

Destroying Isis in 1 month?

OR

Taking 10 years and trillions of dollars to make the military industrial complex happy?

Of course.. answer is "neither".. But, "neither" isn't a realistic option when you have a $1 trillion dollar per year machine that owns part of your country and country's government.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

#StandWithRand !!

#StandWithRand !!

Beware the cult of "government"...

anyone see this comment he wrote in 'Time'?

Rand said:

"Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles."

Really? He wrote that?

http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-am-not-an-isolationist/

23

No problem with that at all... fully constitutional...

...in this manner:

1. Congress is asked to allow the trade;

2. Private companies who make such equipment, at their own expense try to sell to Israel;

3. Israel, if they like and need the product (their call) buys from the US companies who are selling... they have to buy with Israel's own money, not US Funds, Tax-payers money, Fed money, no... just Israeli money!

4. Everybody is happy except those who wanted to blow up Israel, and the Israeli's who had to fork over the money in their wonderful socialist system, to pay for the onslaught repelling!

5. Maybe Israel would also, thanks to their own ticked off serfs who have to pay for and man the war machine, change their own system to make private what was public! This would force the companies and the people to be more frugal about war, and learn how to make peace, friendship, and commerce! Something which was more common in the past 'uncivilized' ages!

I have no doubt Rand has this in mind!

Saying it will not get the nomination however!

Tough for the Orwellian couch potatoes who hear what Rand says, believe he means more Orwellian war, and are 'fooled' into voting for peace! So sad! They will get ruffled by their own Orwellian-ism!
Since they do not understand Robert's Rules of Order, and the meaning of the minority being heard, and are willing to cheat in every nomination process, it is high time, and fine, if they are defeated by their own ignorance!

Keep up the confusion folks!

Rand Paul is splitting hairs on ISIS

If this is Rand Paul's position, then we are definitely going to war.

War will destroy our economy and cause us to do evil things, which will trigger our downfall just as surely as bin Laden triggered the downfall of Soviet Union.

Ron Paul would have implemented a Congressional declaration of war, but not until he fought it tooth and nail. As Ron Paul says so eloquently, we can have peace by doing less.

If no one is left in Washington to stop war, then mind you, there will be war and a wholesale destruction of our economy. We will do evil things and create many enemies and no one will care in the end about U.S. journalists that were beheaded way back in 2014.

‘Each individual is separated from others by a "taboo of personal isolation"...this "narcissism of minor differences"'
--Sigmund Freud

nicely said

why so many here who know it was the policy and actions that created it, yet think that repeating that will somehow solve it (this time) are in my opinion kidding themselves.

Saying you want to militarily

Saying you want to militarily confront isis without acknowledging how they came to be is pretty typical of a politician. Is Rand projecting his true intentions or simply 'playing the game'? isis has been funded by our meddling in the middle east. We send arms to rebels in Libya and Syria who are hard-line Islamists indistinguishable from isis. Furthermore we are allies with gulf nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar which provide financial support to isis. Turkey is a NATO partner and another strong supporter of isis. To say you want to militarily intervene and deal isis is very shortsighted. Rand didn't care about isis and similar groups when they were getting US $$ and weapons to fight Gaddafi and Assad. He didn't care when they were suicide bombing Iraq last summer killing +250 people a month. As soon as isis kill some american/israeli 'journalists', now all of a sudden isis is the enemy at the gates. Rand nothing but a demagogue politician appealing to the lowest common denominator (neocons, war patriots etc)

I think he realizes that the

I think he realizes that the media is going to keep up the war propaganda until this war happens and he wants to break the precedent of recent presidents going to war on their own without consulting congress.
Also, if congress is involved, their is at least the chance they can have more control over the number of troops, the amount of money to be spent, and the time of our involvement. I think Rand also wants to prove that he is not an isolationist to improve his chances in 2016.

Very good piece

This made me laugh...

"Rand Paul is what you’d get if Ron Paul and a normal person had a baby, and this is exactly what happened."

I bet Ron would laugh at that too. Then he'd look over at Rand's mom and smile.

Excellent

article.

WWI

There has been many unworthy wars the U.S. has fought even though Congress declared war. World War I is a perfect example.

I think Ron Paul's solution

I think Ron Paul's solution to this was, Letters of marque and reprisal. There's a video of him explaining that. Maybe someone can find it and pass it on to Rand.

Here's Ron's solution for this situation,

although it looks like some here would like to sweep it under the carpet. (i don't mean you No1ButPaul).
http://www.dailypaul.com/325582/new-ron-paul-video-if-we-did...

somebody on another site

claimed rand was proposing the letters of marque on hannity's radio show yesterday. i missed it but i believe it as that would be consistent with his/our/ron's philosophy.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

not regarding ISIS

That was regarding Osama. ISIS is a military threat with a military...

Im not saying I want a war with them but that is the difference.

To further support what you are saying

...and what Rand has said:

To "destroy ISIS militarily" means to destroy the military capacity of ISIS. It doesn't necessarily mean US military is to be used. I can't really imagine a scenario in which US military would not be used, but my point is that the goal, based upon what Rand has said, is not to destroy ISIS by using our military but to destroy the military of ISIS.

A year ago ISIS was dependent on underground support from the likes of CIA, Clinton/Kerry, McCain, and various non-US entities. The bulk of their initial arsenal was basically everything in Libya that could go "bang". Now they have secured over a dozen operational oilfields which are generating a couple million dollars a day affording them relative independence in weapons acquisition.

Imagine the Contras of the 1980s taking large territories in El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. Why did I throw that notion in here? I'm not yet sure. :D

The main benefit to having a policy [from the Oval Office] is that it can actually prevent some use of military to demilitarize a situation. Even if war were not declared on ISIS as the result of the hypothetical situation of Rand as President bringing the debate to Congress, the result could still be a more effective President in preventing weapon sales to the region, dealing with Saudis, and maybe even putting an end to foreign aid in general.

I dunno. I just wanted to say that one first thing. I musta blacked out after that first paragraph. o_0

which is precisely why they created ISIS

Al Qaeda had no home country on which to declare war and the masses aren't as excited about the endless war on terror as they were in 2002.

Create an enemy and recognize its statehood... then there's a state with which we can go to war! (control that state and you can make the war last for decades)

I know that's tangential but wanted to share that... as far as Rand's take on this I wonder whether he's playing us or the establishment for fools. One side will get punked if he takes office... but which one?

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

Rand & Hannity claim

ISIS has declared war on the US.

Uh, they actually did.

Whether you believe that ISIS was 100% created by America and a few other major players, it's pretty clear that they've go their own agenda at this point. They've stated things like sending clandestine people into the U.S. to eventually turn it into an Islamic state. Their charter, which is definitely crazy, is to subjugate the entire world under Islam. They have specifically called out America and Russia as targets as well.

You can hate Rand Paul if it makes you feel all nice and individualistic, but you are not entitled to mangle the facts and go unchallenged.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton