Skip to main content

Constitution 101: Congress Declares War (or Not)

Congress wussed out in 2003 when it encouraged George W. Bush to make his own decision as to whether to attack Iraq. This is not how it works. Congress must declare war before the president can undertake war. With regard to Iraq, George W. Bush made the wrong--and an illegal --decision. Let's hope Congress takes responsibility for deciding whether to go to war in the future. If President Bush wants to go to war against Iraq, let's hope Congress tells him to suck eggs. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who understands this fundamental concept.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that, among other things, "Congress shall have power to...declare war." They haven't done a very good job of that lately. Instead they listened to President Bush's Dog and Pony Show and said, ooh, here, you make that decision. That's too scary for us to decide.

And we got Iraq. Yet when Iraq is not even nearly mopped up, rumors abound of an impending attack on Iran. Because of recent counter-Constitutional events, everyone is looking to President Bush to determine if he'll make that decision. How stupid are we? Brit Hume of Fox News is that stupid. He recently was flummoxed when asking a question of Ron Paul during a Republican presidential debate.
During the [September 5th] debate, moderator Brit Hume presented Congressman Ron Paul with a scenario that the next president may face regarding Iran. As described by Hume: “Its [Iran’s] nuclear program has continued to advance. UN weapons inspectors … are now saying that it appears that Iran is on the verge of being able to produce and may even be producing nuclear weapons…. Cross-border incidents in Iraq involving elements of the Revolutionary Guard … continue to increase and are a continuing problem for U.S. forces there. In addition, the threats by Iran’s leader against Israel have become more pronounced and more extreme.” Hume then asked Paul: “What do you do?”

Congressman Paul began his answer by pointing out: “For one thing, one thing I would remember very clearly is the president doesn’t have the authority to go to war — he goes to the Congress.

But Brit Hume appeared a bit puzzled with Paul’s point that the president does not have the authority to go to war. “What do you do?” he asked the congressman. “So what do you do?” he repeated. Paul answered: “He goes to the Congress and finds out if there’s any threat to our national security.”
Mr. Hume, that's not a difficult concept. It really is that simple, unless you want to pass a Constitutional amendment. The president does NOT have the authority to do what George W. Bush did in 2003 with regard to Iraq. Yet Congress looked the other way when he did it.

Any person running for president who does not understand this fundamental point should be laughed out of town on a rail. That leaves just about one candidate from the current slate on either side of the aisle that is qualified to fill the vacancy that will fortunately soon occur in the White House.

That person is Ron Paul.

Comments

  1. Heck, no Congress since Pearl Harbor has had to stones to issue a Declaration of War. Why start now?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brit Hume could have told him the correct answer (in Bush World). You declare the Iranians terrorists and then use the September 2001 AUMF as authority to go to war.

    Of course, the Senate (including Hillary Clinton) just helped legitimize that trick.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree. This is why it would be a travesty to elect Hillary Clinton as president in 2008.

    None of them has any excuse for what transpired in March 2003, except that perhaps they don't understand the Constitution, which would mean that they shouldn't have ever been elected to congress (or president) in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) argued with Ron Paul on the floor of the House back in those days, telling him that modern events had superseded the Constitution. The vast majority of legislators in both houses agreed with Hyde, as is evidenced by their vote. This tells us what these people think of their oath to uphold the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's interesting how people try to be the stars of their respective parties by advocating for hot button issues, but ignore the issues on which everything else has its fundament. Beneath the water level of the Republican and Democrat icebergs is a behemoth of misunderstandings and mistruths. The unfortunate thing is that most voters today vote for politicians based on their appeal to emotion rather than their appeal to intellect, common sense, and truth.

    It may not have started with FDR, but it reached its crescendo under our first blatantly socialist president. And now that we know we can vote ourselves largess out of the federal treasury, we have become the imbeciles of liberty. It can't last much longer at the rate we're going.

    Henry Hide is wrong. It's good he's gone.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...

The Inhumanity of Bob Lonsberry: Waterboarding, Concentration Camps, and the the Bataan Death March

KNRS 570 radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry advocated waterboarding and other forms of torture during his show on April 21, 2009. More grotesquely, he was beaming with pride about his advocacy campaign. It's difficult to imagine then, that, by the same rationale, had Lonsberry been a German at the time of Hitler, or a Japanese during the Bataan Death March, that he would not have advocated torture of Jews in the concentration camps or the bayoneting and shooting of American soldiers on the Bataan trail. Torture, Torture, Everywhere! Nearly 80,000 American soldiers were captured by the Japanese in the To contemplate a discussion about whether or not torture is legal or whether it even works, it is first required to come to the conclusion that 'I am a child of God, but my adversary is a monkey'. Phillipines in 1942 and forced to march with no food and very little water for six days. If a man stumbled, if he didn't respond quickly to a command, or if he tried to get wat...

One Sure Thing about Global Warming: Loss of Liberty

In all of my reading about man-made global warming, never once have I come across the statement that 'we are absolutely sure' that mankind is causing irreversible global warming by our behavior. No one has dared make this claim yet. The closest anyone has come is being pretty sure that something bad might happen in fifty to one hundred years if we don't act now. One thing that several people have stated (on both sides of the debate), however, is that slowing the supposed effects caused by man on the warming of the globe will require significant strengthening of governments around the world, along with a significant reduction in your freedom to choose. My religion teaches You may think, from this article, that I am having a hard time separating my views of church from my views of state. That would be correct. that there was a great war in heaven between two ideologies. The first faction advocated our Heavenly Father's plan, which was a blueprint for freedom of choice...