Authorization for the Use of Force is not unconstitutional

[paulpwns]

The argument over war powers is shady at best. The favor actually swings towards the president because he has complete control of the U.S military. The war powers act attempted to fix this, but it never really worked.

Why is this RP's basis of argument so much?

Check your constitution.


The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....


I hate expansive executive power as well, but this argument that they are violating the constitution isn't very sound.

Lets stick to the CLEAR violations of the 4th amendment. ( cough cough patriot act)

 

[Qiu]

I don't think it's as simple as that. Being the commander in chief means you in charge of the troops- it does not mean you have a right to start wars. No general, no matter how powerful, actually has the power to start wars.

 

[Green Mountain Boy]

Even if you are correct, there's still no getting around the fact that the Iraq war was/is an unjust war.

 

[ctb619]

Besides, isn't he only the Commander in Chief in times of war?

 

[happyphilter]

Commander in Chief is just one of the many titled roles the President can be. Commander in Chief is the title he attains in times of war.

 

[john_anderson_ii]

No, the President is always at the top of every servicemen's chain of command. He always the Commander In Chief. It's actually the most important bullet on his job description IMHO.

 

[david.griffus]

Check your history, bud. You are wrong.

 

[axiomata]

This is an argument against Democrats trying to micro-manage the war from the congress, not an argument against Dr. Paul's assertion that it unconstitutional for give up their responsibility in declaring war so that they can't be politically held accountable. Everyone who voted for the war authorization was a political coward.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

So where in the Constitution does it say that the Legislative Branch can transfer the war power to the Executive Branch? The part you have bolded says "prescribed by Congress" not the President.

 

[Qiu]

This is an argument against Democrats trying to micro-manage the war from the congress, not an argument against Dr. Paul's assertion that it unconstitutional for give up their responsibility in declaring war so that they can't be politically held accountable. Everyone who voted for the war authorization was a political coward.

Dr. Paul addressed this today as well. He said that people who vote for war authorization instead of a declaration of war are simply taking an insurance policy. If the war does not go well, they can blame the president's decision to go in. If it does go well, they can say they voted for it. If someone just voted for a declaration of war, they are responsible for the decision.

 

[axiomata]

I know, I had just finished listening to his speech.

Also, for those interested in the CiC part:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the
principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject
relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to
Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment.

 

[Hurricane Bruiser]

The legislative branch does not have the authority to delegate's it's responsibility (declaring war) to the executive branch. That it was done, albeit unconstitutionally, is the main problem we are in the mess we are. It is much easier to vote to give someone else responsibility to make a tough decision than it is for you yourself to make the decision. That is why Congress is granted that power. The President simply carries the decisions of the legislative body out as Commander in Chief.

 

[blazin_it_alwyz]

I want to explain something, to explain the point.

There is a coding language, that is called CSS, which stands for Cascading Style Sheets. And each sheet is filled with a bunch of rules. The point of Cascading Style sheets, is that they cascade, or in other words, there can be many many rules on different sheets, but there is always a sheet at the top of the order, that can trump other sheets.

The president may be commander-in-chief, and he can move around the army and attack and what not, but there is a set of rules that cascades over that, and replaces it with it's own, which says, congress must declare wars......... as long as that stipulation is filled, yeah the president can do whatever he wants...

It's kind of like state laws, in which federal laws cascade over them. That is at least my understanding of all of this.

 

[SeanEdwards]

This is an argument against Democrats trying to micro-manage the war from the congress, not an argument against Dr. Paul's assertion that it unconstitutional for give up their responsibility in declaring war so that they can't be politically held accountable. Everyone who voted for the war authorization was a political coward.

Yep, and they violated their oath of office.

The Constitution does not grant them the authority to appoint a Ceasar and that's what they did.

 

[derdy]

I want to explain something, to explain the point.

There is a coding language, that is called CSS, which stands for Cascading Style Sheets. And each sheet is filled with a bunch of rules. The point of Cascading Style sheets, is that they cascade, or in other words, there can be many many rules on different sheets, but there is always a sheet at the top of the order, that can trump other sheets.

The president may be commander-in-chief, and he can move around the army and attack and what not, but there is a set of rules that cascades over that, and replaces it with it's own, which says, congress must declare wars......... as long as that stipulation is filled, yeah the president can do whatever he wants...

It's kind of like state laws, in which federal laws cascade over them. That is at least my understanding of all of this.

Actually, when they wrote the Constitution it delegated certain powers to the federal government and prohibited certain powers which were repugnant to the States.

That's why you have the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

-James Madison, Federalist No. 45

If anyone here hasn't read The Federalist Papers or The Anti-Federalist Papers(which I hadn't until now, finished the Federalist and working on the Anti at the moment) I strongly suggest doing so. If you have it wouldn't be a bad time to brush up on them considering our platform.

 

[ChooseLiberty]

Is this Ron Paul news?

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Wait did Ron paul not authorize use of force against Bin Laden/Afghanistan? Sure he did. Iraq is not a case where "use of force" is applicable, but rather where a declaration of war must be made.

 

[axiomata]

Wait did Ron paul not authorize use of force against Bin Laden/Afghanistan? Sure he did. Iraq is not a case where "use of force" is applicable, but rather where a declaration of war must be made.

Furthermore the president may authorize force without the consent of congress. But "the use of force" is different from "War" and "The Iraq War" is not just a use of force.

 

[paulpwns]

So where in the Constitution does it say that the Legislative Branch can transfer the war power to the Executive Branch? The part you have bolded says "prescribed by Congress" not the President.

yeah the Congress had a say when they voted for the AUMF. They supported it.
Paul didn't, because he actually is a leader with some foresight.

The supreme court has historically ignored the question.

 

[Marshall]

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

So the President has no power over the USMC or the USAF? And while we're at it, where are the state militias?