War? Dr. Paul approval of congress yes, but what about war powers act?

[vechorik]

I'm answering this and began to ask myself "Do I really know what Ron Paul's stance is?" He will act in an emergency, right? Of course he will...right? LOL

Blogger said:
"The war powers act was an attempt by congress to give the Commander in Cheif some flexibility to handle emergency situations that arise when congress can’t be consulted like when they are not in session and Saddam invades Kuwait. Which is why the authority to commit troops lasts only 30 days or something like that then Congress must consent to further operations. If Mr. Paul walks his talk then he would never commit troops without a formal declaration of war from congress. Something that has not been done since WW2. I think he’s right on so many things but pretty naive about being able to get it done."

 

[The Gold Standard]

I'm answering this and began to ask myself "Do I really know what Ron Paul's stance is?" He will act in an emergency, right? Of course he will...right? LOL

Blogger said:
"The war powers act was an attempt by congress to give the Commander in Cheif some flexibility to handle emergency situations that arise when congress can’t be consulted like when they are not in session and Saddam invades Kuwait. Which is why the authority to commit troops lasts only 30 days or something like that then Congress must consent to further operations. If Mr. Paul walks his talk then he would never commit troops without a formal declaration of war from congress. Something that has not been done since WW2. I think he’s right on so many things but pretty naive about being able to get it done."

The Constitution already allows the executive branch to authorize the military to repel attacks in an emergency. What I find hilarious is that it is an emergency that Iraq invades Kuwait, and that we need to give the President of the United States power to deal with it.

 

[RonPaulCult]

Obviously if there is a clear and imminent attack to our homeland Ron Paul would respond with immediate force as commander in chief.

By the way, Ron Paul is against the War Powers act because it is unconstitutional. However, it is the "law" of the land until it is repealed or ruled unconstitutional by judges. He has called out Obama for violating the law which was passed by congress, even though he doesn't agree with the law.

 

[PastaRocket848]

he would comply, as stated before, if america was under imminent threat of being or was currently being attacked by another nation. fortunately, that hasn't been the case since 1941.

 

[vechorik]

Thanks -- I combined answer for a nice retort (and have it straight in my mind).

 

[affa]

also worth noting is that the War Powers act is for 90 days, and effectively creates the problem it was (so-called) trying to solve. see, once you've committed for 90 days, how exactly do you get out of the situation? thus, in limiting the president to 90 days, the WPA effectively allows the President to completely dodge Congress since, as we've seen, once we've committed it's easy to paint any nay-sayers as unpatriotic.

 

[TonySutton]

In 1941 US Forces fought back against Japan without a declaration of war. It took less than 48 hours for Congress to pass the declaration of war.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

emergency situations that arise when congress can’t be consulted like when they are not in session and Saddam invades Kuwait

Hope you refuted that nonsense.

 

[sailingaway]

The Constitution allows action in imminent peril or to catch a fleeing enemy. The War Powers act going further than that, is in my own opinion, as well as Ron Paul's, unConstitutional.

 

[SonofThunder]

I've read articles that say the War and Emergency Powers act of 1933 basically ended the Constitution and has been in effect ever since. It is the reason for all of the licenses and regulations and such that come from the various departments under the executive branch. Without "emergency" authorization, which has been in place for almost 80 years, the executive would have no such power.

 

[Melancton Smith]

Ron would, of course, use the military in an emergency situation, but no further; that is, he would not, on his own, without Congressional approval, use the military in a non-emergency situation. However, and I'm not sure Paul's position, the president has the ability to veto even a declaration of war. I don't think this has ever happened, but would be quite interesting to see, though, since Congress doesn't pass declarations of war anymore, there would be no need for a veto.

St. George Tucker, a jurist, wrote the first major treatise on the Constitution in 1803, and he had this to say:

In England the right of making war is in the king. In Sweden it was otherwise after the death of Charles XII. Until the revolution in 1772, when from a limited monarchy, Sweden became subject to a despot. With us the representatives of the people have the right to decide this important question, conjunctively with the supreme executive who may, on this occasion as on every other, (except a proposal to amend the constitution,) exercise a qualified negative on the joint resolutions of congress; but this negative is unavailing if two thirds of the congress should persist in an opposite determination; so that it may be in the power of the executive to prevent, but not to make, a declaration of war.

At the end of this passage he had a footnote to say this:

This is certainly the spirit of the constitution; but in the practical exercise of the functions of the president of the United States, it may be found to be in the power of that magistrate to provoke, though not to declare war.

He was very prescient!