Home› Spurious Generalities

Ron Paul: No Fly Zone Unconstitutional

Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
edited April 2011 in Spurious Generalities
Ron Paul argues that U.S. military involvement in Libya is unconstitutional and he is right. We need to let these people figure things out for themselves and stop being the police force for the U.N. (A.K.A. Brussels).

Share on Twitter

Comments

  • theGeneraltheGeneral Regular
    edited March 2011
    Agreed, 100%. Come to think of it, I don't recall ever disagreeing with Dr. Paul on anything.
    Share on Twitter
  • theGeneraltheGeneral Regular
    edited March 2011
    JosephStalin wrote: »
    I think his idea of having a zero percent income tax is kind of stupid but he is one of the mower honest politicians out there. Anyway on topic how exactly is this unconstitutional? i can see being against it but what is the constitutional argument? I actually support Qaddafi but I think for America this presents an easy opportunity to get one of our ''enemies'' out of power because unlike Iraq there is a strong resistance ready to take control over their own country. Their won't be nearly the same power vacuum.
    I'm pretty sure the US constitution requires congress to declare wars.
    Share on Twitter
  • theGeneraltheGeneral Regular
    edited March 2011
    Well you got your answer. BTW, the "no fly zone" involved the bombing of ground targets by our forces. That is war, not diplomacy.
    Share on Twitter
  • RemadERemadE Global Moderator
    edited March 2011
    theGeneral wrote: »
    Well you got your answer. BTW, the "no fly zone" involved the bombing of ground targets by our forces. That is war, not diplomacy.

    The West's Diplomacy comes on the end of a rifle, the drop of a bomb or a rigged vote. It's all an illusion.
    Share on Twitter
  • theGeneraltheGeneral Regular
    edited March 2011
    RemadE wrote: »
    The West's Diplomacy comes on the end of a rifle, the drop of a bomb or a rigged vote. It's all an illusion.
    Either way, I don't give a flying fuck about Libya or the middle east, and it is certainly not my financial responsibility to make sure they have democracy, or stability or whatever. Let their people decide it for themselves. Less of our soldiers would die, less of our money would be wasted, and our reputation around the world could only improve.
    Share on Twitter
  • theGeneraltheGeneral Regular
    edited March 2011
    JosephStalin wrote: »
    Having a friendly government set up in Libya would be a good thing for America. Face it the constitution is and should be used as a guideline not law.
    You mean "friendly" like Saudi Arabia? I'm pretty sure most Americans would disagree with your second comment.
    Share on Twitter
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited March 2011
    JosephStalin wrote: »
    Having a friendly government set up in Libya would be a good thing for America. Face it the constitution is and should be used as a guideline not law.

    You are an idiot, the constitution is the law. All laws derive their power from it.
    Share on Twitter
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited March 2011
    Ron Paul speaks to the fact that President Obama's actions on Libya are violating the Constitution, ceding authority and sovereignty to the United Nations, and weakening the United States. Action by the American people to return government to its constitutional limits is critical if we are to save our nation.



    Share on Twitter
  • kidgokidgo Regular
    edited March 2011
    i think its a joke let them fight and kill each other.... bout time the world population decreases a little....
    Share on Twitter
  • JustAnotherAssholeJustAnotherAsshole Regular
    edited April 2011
    Since when does the U.S. government consider constitutionality when deploying its armed forces?

    Also, the War Powers act allows the commander in chief to deploy the military anywhere in the world for 90 days without congressional approval, and was actually meant to limit the presidents power to send troops.
    Share on Twitter
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited April 2011
    The war powers act itself is unconstitutional.
    Share on Twitter
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited April 2011
    Really? It gives the president powers that the constitution reserves for congress. Any law that supersedes or is in conflict with the constitution is unconstitutional.


    But let Professor Robert F. Turner explain it to you.
    The statute has already played a critical role in the killing of hundreds of American servicemen. It continues to tell terrorists and others who wish us ill that the American President has no constitutional authority to rescue American citizens on the high seas or in foreign lands. And these costs are not in the slightest way offset by any positive benefit of the statute. It was, from the start, a fraud designed to mislead American voters into believing that Congress had no responsibility for "Vietnam." Had it been on the statute books a decade earlier, it would not have in the slightest way prevented what happened in Vietnam. It is flagrantly unconstitutional on numerous grounds, and this has been acknowledged by senior leaders of both political parties. During times of crisis, it shifts the debate from the wisdom of military action on its merits to a dispute over procedure and unreasonable demands that the President announce artificial withdrawal dates and other constraints likely to undermine operational success.
    If Congress is serious about supporting the war against terrorism, it should immediately repeal this unnecessary, unconstitutional, and shameful statute.
    Share on Twitter
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited April 2011
    JosephStalin wrote: »
    As the commander in chief the president should have full power to use the military as he sees fit. The constitution is good but sometimes decisions need to be made quick without waiting for the bickering children who make up the congress to agree on a decision.

    So your argument is that the constitution should only be adhered to when it suits your view of the world?
    Share on Twitter
  • JustAnotherAssholeJustAnotherAsshole Regular
    edited April 2011
    The war powers act was actually meant to restrict the president's power to use military force.

    Fuck knows what the commander in chief was able to do before it.
    Share on Twitter
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited April 2011
    JustAnotherAsshole wrote: »
    The war powers act was actually meant to restrict the president's power to use military force.

    Fuck knows what the commander in chief was able to do before it.

    If you read the link in the post above I think you will come away with a different opinion.
    Share on Twitter
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited April 2011
    JosephStalin wrote: »
    My point is that bombing muslims is never a bad thing regardless of what the constitution says.

    Yeah, see, that is why you get laughed at Chester. You are incapable of logical discussion.
    Share on Twitter
  • dr rockerdr rocker Regular
    edited April 2011
    JosephStalin wrote: »
    My point is that bombing muslims is never a bad thing regardless of what the constitution says.


    Did your parents have any children that survived?
    Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.