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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Comments
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.
You are an idiot, the constitution is the law. All laws derive their power from it.
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.
But let Professor Robert F. Turner explain it to you.
So your argument is that the constitution should only be adhered to when it suits your view of the world?
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.
Yeah, see, that is why you get laughed at Chester. You are incapable of logical discussion.
Did your parents have any children that survived?