Rand Paul on ISIS response: 'This war is now illegal'

[JerryArkansas]

He is right, every war we've been in since Vietnam is been illegal.  Only congress and declare war, and they have not done so yet.

That's if you describe this as war.

It is a fuzzy situation.  I would consider it a war, but some don't.

[Lief 🗽]

He is right, every war we've been in since Vietnam is been illegal.  Only congress and declare war, and they have not done so yet.

Congress has authorized every "war" we've been in since Vietnam, so they've all been legal.

[Cory]

He is right, every war we've been in since Vietnam is been illegal.  Only congress and declare war, and they have not done so yet.

Congress has authorized every "war" we've been in since Vietnam, so they've all been legal.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress.

Again, that's not what anyone said. Iraq (our ally, legally speaking) is under attack. The President has the right to use force to defend them. I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get around this.

Can you point to a provision that says that the President can go to war unilaterally so long as Iraq is under attack? Treaties do not count, as the Constitution is theoretically the highest law of the land, and thus could only be legally superseded by an amendment process.

Actually, Congress has been authorizing the use of force going all the way back to the Quasi War with France without using a formal "declaration of war".  It's not just the war powers clause but also the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;" that is applicable when it comes to the use of force.

[Mordecai]

I am surprise that after Bush so many are willing to confer such broad executive authority on the President. I am a Republican, and somewhat  Conservative at that, and I had many issues with the Bush administration's actions.

I would have suspected that our "peace loving Democrats" would be just as uncomfortable as a "somewhat Conserative" Republican if not more so.

Probably because Obama wasn't the one to open the lid on that Pandora's box in the first place. It's like Colin Powell said, "You break it, you bought it." Bush's shoddy foreign policy made Iraq a haven for Islamic militants and Obama's trying to clean that mess up as best he can.

[Simfan34]

All this "war" and "constitutional" business and what have you is all completely besides the point. Unless we're talking about a full fledged invasion of a sovereign state, then the President gets to do whatever he wants when it comes to military operations. If the commander in chief wants to deploy a small amount of troops or planes or ships to defend American interests, he can do that, especially when we already have military forces operating in the immediate region. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it always will be.

I can't wait for Lief et al. to cheer on our right-wing Republican president when he invades some random country 14 years from now. I'll be cheering right with them!

[bedstuy]

All this "war" and "constitutional" business and what have you is all completely besides the point. Unless we're talking about a full fledged invasion of a sovereign state, then the President gets to do whatever he wants when it comes to military operations. If the commander in chief wants to deploy a small amount of troops or planes or ships to defend American interests, he can do that, especially when we already have military forces operating in the immediate region. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it always will be.

I can't wait for Lief et al. to cheer on our right-wing Republican president when he invades some random country 14 years from now. I'll be cheering right with them!

Come on.  Is it also hypocritical to think the President can appoint Supreme Court justices, but hope that it's going to be a Democratic President making the appointments?

It's certainly possible that we could elect a terrible foreign policy President like Mitt Romney or Rand Paul.  I wouldn't like it, but I also wouldn't make up these ridiculous arguments about "the power to declare war." 

[SPC]

I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress.

Again, that's not what anyone said. Iraq (our ally, legally speaking) is under attack. The President has the right to use force to defend them. I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get around this.

Can you point to a provision that says that the President can go to war unilaterally so long as Iraq is under attack? Treaties do not count, as the Constitution is theoretically the highest law of the land, and thus could only be legally superseded by an amendment process.

Actually, Congress has been authorizing the use of force going all the way back to the Quasi War with France without using a formal "declaration of war".  It's not just the war powers clause but also the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;" that is applicable when it comes to the use of force.

Fair enough, but where is the Congressional authorization for force against these landlocked pirates called ISIS?

[All Along The Watchtower]

I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress.

Again, that's not what anyone said. Iraq (our ally, legally speaking) is under attack. The President has the right to use force to defend them. I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get around this.

Can you point to a provision that says that the President can go to war unilaterally so long as Iraq is under attack? Treaties do not count, as the Constitution is theoretically the highest law of the land, and thus could only be legally superseded by an amendment process.

Actually, Congress has been authorizing the use of force going all the way back to the Quasi War with France without using a formal "declaration of war".  It's not just the war powers clause but also the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;" that is applicable when it comes to the use of force.

Fair enough, but where is the Congressional authorization for force against these landlocked pirates called ISIS?

Good question. Why can't Congress get its sh*t together?

[pbrower2a]

Isn't he technically wrong anyways? I mean wouldn't our mutual defense agreement with Iraq automatically justify military action in their defense? We don't need Congressional authorization because we're upholding our treaty obligations, right?

Foreign treaties override domestic legislation?

Yes, they do -- if America is to maintain credibility.

ISIS must die for the world to be safe. If we do not strike them in Iraq, then we will soon have to face them in a land war on Israeli territory. I am not saying that Israel would make a questionable ally; indeed, the Israelis would be just the ones to put up the most brutal fight that ISIS could ever imagine.

For one, Paul supports strikes against ISIS, but objects to the idea of one individual deciding which conflicts to enter without any authorization from the legislative body. Second, the idea that ISIS could conquer Israel is laughable.

They would certainly kill Israelis. We would also find out whether Israel really has an atom bomb. 

[Cory]

They would certainly kill Israelis. We would also find out whether Israel really has an atom bomb. 

No we wouldn't. The Israelis wouldn't need to use nukes against IS. I mean c'mon.