He was combative, assertive and passionate at first and that didn't bother me at all, but there was a point in the call where really did give into the anger and started going off about his experience with military officers, etc. I don't know what he's been through, but this seems to me to be the point where we lose people and give the picture that Ron Paul supporters are all vitriolic, angry people. Yes, we have PLENTY to be angry about, but its about being effective and finding the balance. He was very well spoken though, and made some good points about how it is not conservative to be funding a mercantilistic protectionist empire.
When addressing the Constitutionality of the war, here is the key: Use the text of the authorization itself. Neo-Cons will say til they're blue in the face that the authorization WAS a Constitutional declaration of war, so you need to know what's in it and exactly why it isn't or you'll just get stuck in a "no it isn't... yes it is" type of exchange. When you get into the text of it, the idea that the authorization for the use of force in Iraq constitutes a declaration is laughable and cannot be maintained. Here are the 2 key points:
1) The authorization for Iraq was an Unconstitutional transfer of Congressional discretion, not a Constitutional declaration.
Previous declarations (Japan, Germany) actually state "a state of war exists with ___ nation". This may sound like a trivialty but it is very crucial to Constitutional law. Justice Thomas M. Cooley wrote in "Principles of Constitutional Law" that the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief are triggered by a State of War. A State of War can exist EITHER when there is a situation of invasive attack by an enemy OR when that State of War is declared by Congress.
In Constitutional declarations, the Congeress is exercising their Constitutionally appointed duty of determining the propriety of war and then declaring the State of War and directing the President to act upon it.
By contrast, the Iraq resolution contains no such language. Instead it is an attempt to GIVE the discretion to the President to use, in the words of the authorization "as he determines to be necessary".
The fact that the Iraq authorization was an unconstitutional transfer of Constituitonal powers, and not a Constitutional declaration is evident in the fact that the President, after it was passed, continued diplomatic efforts for months and did not decide to use military force until much later when he claimed those efforts had failed. Had it been a Constitutional declaration, he would have been bound by the act of Congress to prosecute the war when it was passed.
2) The authorization for Iraq cited, as one of the 2 objectives, the need to enforce United Nations resolutions.
Ask Neo-Cons if they think that our fine military should be made into an enforcement arm of the United Nations. No Neo-Con I have spoken to has had an answer for this... it REALLY stops them dead in their tracks and gets them thinking.
Here are links to the text of both the authorization for use of force in Iraq and the Declaration of War on Japan from WWII:
Iraq authorization:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Japan declaration:
http://www.hbci.com/~tgort/japan.htm
Anyway, just some thoughts.
I want to commend the caller and I think he made some really good points that will hopefully jolt some of those Neo-Conservative listeners into deeper thought and study.
