Christiane Amanpour: "Will you cut military?" Rand Paul: "Yes."

[Knightskye]

http://soc.li/IqDMt2C

That link should go to the video. I couldn't find another link directly to the video.

I just wish he said "Department of Education" when she asked what he was going to cut.

 

[awake]

Toldja - The war party sent their emissary to test allegiance to the warfare state.

 

[wormyguy]

The correct question is "would you cut defense," because there's no way that defense will be cut.

 

[susano]

Best Rand interview I've seen yet. I think that's because he's now freed from campaign mode.

 

[sofia]

i think he was too vague ......

 

[Fredom101]

If the question was "Would you end the wars and bring all troops home?" do you think he would still answer yes?

 

[low preference guy]

If the question was "Would you end the wars and bring all troops home?" do you think he would still answer yes?

He would answer that under the Constitution, that's the prerogative of the President, not the Senate.

 

[tremendoustie]

He would answer that under the Constitution, that's the prerogative of the President, not the Senate.

Wrong. The legislature can and should end funding and de-authorize immediately.

 

[low preference guy]

Wrong. The legislature can and should end funding and de-authorize immediately.

I don't think they can "de-authorize".

Rand's position is that it's the prerogative of the Congress to declare War, and the Commander in Chief is the one responsible for running it.

Congress would have to defund the entire military budget, considering that the Commander in Chief can move troops from other places. And if they defund it, the Fed can help to pay it.

 

[nate895]

I don't think they can "de-authorize".

Rand's position is that it's the prerogative of the Congress to declare War, and the Commander in Chief is the one responsible for running it.

They would have to defund the entire military budget, considering that the Commander in Chief can move troops from other places. And if they defund it, the Fed can help to pay it.

The precedent for this case actually goes way back....to the English Civil War. The King started a war (as was his prerogative) with Scotland, and Parliament chose to defund the war. From then on, in common law legal systems that have their roots in England (as our law system does), the legislature always has the power of the purse and can designate where funds go. The legislate can explicitly designate its use, and also designate what it, by law, cannot be used to support.

 

[tremendoustie]

I don't think they can "de-authorize".

Sure they can. Just repeal the bill that authorized it.

Rand's position is that it's the prerogative of the Congress to declare War, and the Commander in Chief is the one responsible for running it.

It's the perogative of congressmen to do everything within their power to end these destructive, aggressive, fiscally insane occupations.

Congress would have to defund the entire military budget, considering that the Commander in Chief can move troops from other places. And if they defund it, the Fed can help to pay it.

Defund it and repeal authorization. If the president joins with the fed to continue perpetrating the wars against the will of congress, he's going to be on thin ice indeed.

And at that point you can work on repealing the Fed Reserve act, as well as impeachment.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think they can "de-authorize".

Rand's position is that it's the prerogative of the Congress to declare War, and the Commander in Chief is the one responsible for running it.

Congress would have to defund the entire military budget, considering that the Commander in Chief can move troops from other places. And if they defund it, the Fed can help to pay it.

The House holds the purse strings. They can and should, cut off funds. This is the main reason why our Founders wanted Congressmen to be direct elected and is also why they can be thrown out every 2 years.

 

[tremendoustie]

Heck, the military itself has to be re-authorized every two years. I'm not aware of a single "founder" that supported the existence of a standing army.

I don't agree with any of them on everything, but I certainly agree with them on that.

 

[low preference guy]

The precedent for this case actually goes way back....to the English Civil War. The King started a war (as was his prerogative) with Scotland, and Parliament chose to defund the war. From then on, in common law legal systems that have their roots in England (as our law system does), the legislature always has the power of the purse and can designate where funds go. The legislate can explicitly designate its use, and also designate what it, by law, cannot be used to support.

You'll have to tell Rand Paul that.

PAUL: I think that the actual troop levels should be decided by the President and the generals, but not by Congress. I don’t think Congress has the authority both either to ask for more troops or less troups. Congress can declare war and Congress can fund the troops or not fund the troops.

MCCALLUM: Yes, but that’s essentially where it happens, and when you talk about the funding of the troops — excuse me for interrupting — but you would have have to fund them, and those two things are intrinsically connected, are they not?

PAUL: They are, but funds are fungible. And you can not really limit funds. You could say we’re not going to fund troops in Afghanistan, and he could simply take troops from Ft. Bragg. So I don’t think you can specify specifically where defense funds go, and I don’t think the Constitution intended to restrict the President that way.

 

[tremendoustie]

You'll have to tell Rand Paul that.

If the president can run around perpetrating war, and the congress has no way to stop it, that's a pretty pathetic notion of "checks and balances".

His position is convenient for someone trying to win an election, but it's absolutely false.

 

[low preference guy]

His position is convenient for someone trying to win an election, but it's absolutely false.

Rand Paul is not running for office.

 

[low preference guy]

If the president can run around perpetrating war, and the congress has no way to stop it, that's a pretty pathetic notion of "checks and balances".

The bottom line is that he will have to cut all military funding, otherwise the President can just move the funds. Such cut is not going to occur without a national consensus that the entire military budget should be slashed, and we are nowhere near that consensus.

 

[tremendoustie]

Rand Paul is not running for office.

So the quote was after the election? Then it's convenient for a politician trying to hold office.

If he votes for the defense appropriations bill or military reauthorization he'll have failed his last chance as far as I'm concerned.

 

[tremendoustie]

The bottom line is that he will have to cut all military funding, otherwise the President can just move the funds. Such cut is not going to occur without a national consensus that the entire military budget should be slashed, and we are nowhere near that consensus.

Cut it to peacetime levels.

And since when is "not going to happen without a national consensus" an excuse for a principled person to do what's immoral and damaging? Does Ron vote for evil because the "national consensus" doesn't exist for good?

Such an excuse is B.S. politician speak for, "My spine is made of jellyfish, just like every one of my colleagues. I have no mind or morals of my own."

 

[low preference guy]

If he votes for the defense appropriations bill or military reauthorization he'll have failed his last chance as far as I'm concerned.

You're an anarchist, right? I don't think there was ever any chance of Rand Paul not "failing" from your point of view.