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

[Deus Naturae]

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?

[Deus Naturae]

Didn't he say we needed to do more to go after ISIS? Rand's ideology seems to be Obama bashing rather than anything coherent.

He always maintained that Obama should request Congressional authorization, but now he's more adamant since Obama has now violated the War Powers Resolution.

[Deus Naturae]

Uh, the President doesn't need authority to commit troops.

So..what military action do you think WOULD require the consent of Congress?

[Deus Naturae]

Uh, the President doesn't need authority to commit troops.

So..what military action do you think WOULD require the consent of Congress?

A declaration of war. What the US is carrying out against ISIS isn't war, it's protecting an ally from terrorism.

So military conflicts don't count as wars if they're being fought against terrorists? Where are you getting that definition and why do you think it applies to the US Constitution?

Also, do you share Lief's view that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional? Do you believe the executive has the right to ignore legislation he considers unconstitutional? If your answer to either of those is no, then Obama's actions are clearly unjustified and illegal.

[Deus Naturae]

Uh, the President doesn't need authority to commit troops.

So..what military action do you think WOULD require the consent of Congress?

A declaration of war. What the US is carrying out against ISIS isn't war, it's protecting an ally from terrorism.

ISIS is a rebel/insurgent army. No matter how much cruelty the insurgents use an insurgency isn't an act of terrorism. Fighting a mass insurgency is war.

Not really, especially if it falls under meeting the terms on an alliance.

So...military conflicts don't count as wars if they involve alliances? Bro, do you even history?

[Deus Naturae]

Is the mutual defense agreement with Iraq actually a treaty?

^^^
Anyone?  Seems like this would be a relevant distinction re: Why the US would automatically be at war if a NATO ally is attacked, but not if an ally is attacked with whom we have a mutual defense agreement that isn't actually a treaty.

No, hardly anything is a treaty. 

As far as the Constitutionality, Lief is correct.  There is no formal system where the President needs to get permission from Congress to make decisions as commander-in-chief.

The War Powers Act isn't formal?

[Deus Naturae]

Well an agreement to support democracy in the region therefore justifies Obama's decision to make military action without the consent of congress. It's in the 'national interest'. Plus Obama could just as easily justify his choice under R2P.

Do you not understand the concept of "illegality?" This has nothing to do with whether we have a "responsibility" to drop democracy on Iraq from fighter jets, protect some nebulous "national interest" millions of miles from our shores, or adhere to some abstract concept invented by the UN. You just keep bringing up random arguments that have nothing to do with what Paul is claiming: That Obama's conduct of the war violates the domestic law of the United States. Even if Obama's bombing campaign is in our "national interest" (whatever that is) or conforms to the meaningless ideals of UN bureaucrats, those things have no relevance whatsoever to whether or not his actions violate the War Powers Act (which they objectively do).

Just admit you believe that President has unlimited military authority and the WPA is meaningless (as Lief and Bedstuy have) instead of bringing up random stuff that has nothing to do with the President's authority under domestic law.