It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Pauls Thoughts On Libya: Unconstitutional

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Ron Paul just recently issued a statement about Libya and our governments intervention there. He acknowledges that Gaddafi is a bad guy, however he says that our government can't run around the world intervening with other countries business and spending so much money overseas.

Here are some of the things he said:

It is a serious thing for a President to engage us in a war. He is bound by our Constitution to seek authority from the People, through our Congress, prior to engaging in any military action unless that action is to address an imminent threat to our safety and security. The situation in Libya is a civil war contained within that country’s sovereign borders, and it presented no imminent threat to the United States.

With all these problems and the predictable chaos that will likely ensue, we must ask why this administration was so eager to embark on this Libyan operation in the name of ‘humanitarianism.’ Governments in Bahrain and Yemen have this year used military force to put down democratic protestors. The Saudi regime, which practices Sharia Law, has also been repressive, yet we have not intervened there. These countries continue to sell us oil, while Libya had begun to turn their exports toward Russia, China, India, and Brazil. Could this war largely be about protecting our oil interests at the expense of our Constitution?

This episode is all too familiar. We were already involved in two wars that have dragged on years longer than the people who led us into them initially predicted. We can no longer afford to police the world, in terms of both dollars and American lives. We will destroy ourselves if we do not stop, build a strong national defense at home, and focus on trade and commerce with the world instead of Empire.”
He makes a really good point about how there are governments around the world that are arguably more brutal and oppressive than that in Libya, however we do not intervene there. And his speculation that we might be protecting our oil interests because Libya had recently began exporting elsewhere definitely raises some eyebrows.

I agree with Ron Paul here, because Obama did not receive Congressional approval, making this fully unconstitutional, because the War Powers Resolution states that the president can deploy forces without the approval of Congress, but can only remain there for 60 days and has a 30 day withdrawal period. The US first launched a Tomahawk Missile on March 19, 2011, making that conflict reach 160 days as of today, almost twice as long as the War Powers Resolution allows.

Also, the War Powers Resolution only allows military action without Congressional approval if there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

We need to fix the problems here in America before we can dish out billions of dollars spent fixing problems in other countries.

What do you guys think, is our governments military actions justified, or should they have never started there to begin with because it's unconstitutional?

edit on 26-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Ron Paul is like kryptonite to the media and the elite, what can I say?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
The War Powers Resolution has nothing to do with the Constitution. The President has the authority to send troops wherever he wants and Congress has the ability to declar war. If Congress thinks the President is overstepping his bounds they can defund any action he takes.

Congress is basically letting President's do whatever they want even when they do break the War Powers Resolution but it has nothing to do with the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Ron Paul is a senile old man who should retire. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

The Libyan affair is not a war, we have no troops there, it's a UN backed effort and we are obligated by international law to aid our allies. (course Ron Paul is too pigheaded and insane to understand that helping our allies is what a good country does.)

The guy just needs to go to a nursing home before he falls and breaks a hip.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Obamas2ndTerm
 



Ron Paul is a senile old man who should retire. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

The Libyan affair is not a war, we have no troops there, it's a UN backed effort and we are obligated by international law to aid our allies. (course Ron Paul is too pigheaded and insane to understand that helping our allies is what a good country does.)

The guy just needs to go to a nursing home before he falls and breaks a hip.
Another person with a fresh account bashing Ron Paul....what else is new on this site.

It doesn't matter if we don't have troops there, sending robotic-kamikaze troops does not circumvent the War Powers Resolution. It doesn't matter if our military intervention is a joint effort, it is still a military operation that has not received Congressional approval.

The UN does not trump the Constitution.
edit on 26-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


The Constitution does not specify the duration or reason for the President to be authorized to send troops. It is a huge grey area which is why Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. When President's break the resolution it is up to Congress to enforce it.

It is the fault of the Congress for not holding President's responsible.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


If what the president has done with Libya is actually unconstitutional, then Congress can defund it. They haven't and so it must not be unconstitutional.

Sorry, the dottering old fool is wrong and probably needs to change his depends.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 



The War Powers Resolution has nothing to do with the Constitution. The President has the authority to send troops wherever he wants and Congress has the ability to declar war. If Congress thinks the President is overstepping his bounds they can defund any action he takes.
So just because war has not been officially declared, that means the President can fight as many undeclared wars as he wants for however long he wants?


Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution:

[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water


The War Powers Resolution gives the president some breathing room and allows him 60 days to use the military as he pleases, and gives him another 30 days to pull out. He hasn't pulled out, and he hasn't received Congressional approval, making this unconstitutional.

However Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution grants the president the power of Commander in Chief, so that's where it gets sticky. But I see allowing the president to engage in whatever military operations that he pleases without Congressional approval as unconstitutional.

So it's constitutional in the light that Obama is the Commander in Chief, but it's unconstitutional in the light that he has not yet received Congressional approval. A hundred constitutional actions don't make one unconstitutional action right.

Or does Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 only apply to declared wars? Because that seems like a huge hole in the Constitution, because any president could just engage in military actions wherever he wants and just not declare it a war.
edit on 26-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Don't listen to some random dude on the internet, listen to the Constitutional expert:

edit on 26-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Recieving Congressional approval is something put on him by the Congress not the Constitution. As long as he doesn't try to declare war and maintains that it is in defense of the country (no matter how weak an argument that is) he has the power to do it.

You will also notice that none of the anti-war hawks are filing motions for this to be ruled on by the Supreme Court because they are aware that the Supreme Court will not find that it's uncostitutional. Fact of the matter is that Congress can prevent the President from doing this and they are given that power in the Constitution but they do not do it for whatever reason.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 



Recieving Congressional approval is something put on him by the Congress not the Constitution. As long as he doesn't try to declare war and maintains that it is in defense of the country (no matter how weak an argument that is) he has the power to do it.
I agree, claiming that our actions in Libya somehow defend the people here in America is a terrible argument. But I completely oppose the idea that the president can engage in whatever acts of war that he wants without actually declaring war and get away with it, that's seriously screwed up. If Congress won't do anything about it, that gievs the president unchecked power that the American people can't really do anything about.


You will also notice that none of the anti-war hawks are filing motions for this to be ruled on by the Supreme Court because they are aware that the Supreme Court will not find that it's uncostitutional. Fact of the matter is that Congress can prevent the President from doing this and they are given that power in the Constitution but they do not do it for whatever reason.
Corruption, laziness, not wanting to look un-American, your guess is as good as mine.

edit on 26-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
America is in war with only muslim nations.
America's best friend is Israel.

Can we put 2+2 together?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Obamas2ndTerm

"The Libyan affair is not a war.."


I partially agree.. it's not a war, it's a war crime and insult to humanity... based on similar stale lies / fake legal authorization as Iraq, Afghanistan and the other violent acts of unprovoked aggression that guy on TV justifies with shallow intelligence insulting sound bites.

Germany's WWII acts of aggression were considered "legal" and justified by many 1930s Germans.. who were too blinded by patriotism and unconditional adoration for their dear party leader to see the carnage, misery & death unleashed, in their name, upon innocent people.

Anyone interested in history repeating... should do some quick research on the national socialists of 1930s Germany compared to the actions taken by respective bushbama regimes... an unbiased / brainwashed mind will quickly realize Dr. Paul is a voice of sanity in a sea of feculent pusillanimous gangsters who call themselves republicans & democrat 'leaders".

Those clowns are my "leaders".. like the Dr on Scrubs is my surgeon.. lol.. useless at pretty much everything but wasting fake money, killing strangers, unleashing hell on innocent civilians and generally failing to 'change' a damn thing except for the worst..

If the GOP & DNC made cars that performed as well as the partys do.. all your overpriced under performing GOP/DNC hot rod would be good for is wasting your $$, mowing down strangers who might one day get in your way.. that is... when it wasn't in the shop for failing to operate as promised... lmao.. we'd all be riding mules.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Obamas2ndTerm
Ron Paul is a senile old man who should retire. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

The Libyan affair is not a war, we have no troops there, it's a UN backed effort and we are obligated by international law to aid our allies. (course Ron Paul is too pigheaded and insane to understand that helping our allies is what a good country does.)

The guy just needs to go to a nursing home before he falls and breaks a hip.


How about you look up the accepted definition of war, genius? Wait, I'll go ahead and help you out:


war
1  
 [wawr] Show IPA noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.
active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.


So a hostile action taken by one nation upon another nation is...what...harsh language? A hissy fit, maybe? No, Sherlock, it's war, whether troops are on the ground or not. If a country willfully takes military action against another nation, it is war. You getting that in your head, yet? Maybe spend a joule of energy researching it sometime.

And the U.S. is not obligated to join in any peacekeeping force against a non-NATO member-state, nor is any other member. Any action taken by the U.N. and NATO is voluntary. If a NATO member-state is attacked, however, NATO members can, and usually will, take action in accordance with the treaty.

The wonders of a public education never ceases to amaze me.

/TOA



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


So according to your definition of war this would be included.

Burr–Hamilton duel


The Burr–Hamilton duel was a duel between two prominent American politicians, the former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and sitting Vice President Aaron Burr, on July 11, 1804.[1] At Weehawken in New Jersey, Burr shot and mortally wounded Hamilton. Hamilton was carried to the home of William Bayard on the Manhattan shore, where he died at 2:00 p.m. the next day.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by The Old American
 


So according to your definition of war this would be included.

Burr–Hamilton duel


The Burr–Hamilton duel was a duel between two prominent American politicians, the former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and sitting Vice President Aaron Burr, on July 11, 1804.[1] At Weehawken in New Jersey, Burr shot and mortally wounded Hamilton. Hamilton was carried to the home of William Bayard on the Manhattan shore, where he died at 2:00 p.m. the next day.


en.wikipedia.org...



Of course it was. The nation of Aaron Burr initiated hostilities against the nation of Alexander Hamilton and...wait a minute! Those were individuals of the same country settling a personal dispute! They weren't two different countries with governing bodies! Whoa, you almost got me on that one!



/TOA



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Congress clearly showed the American people who they are fighting for when the applauded Netanyahu more than they do Obama..



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 



I partially agree.. it's not a war, it's a war crime and insult to humanity


I partially disagree, I say it is a war, but just an undeclared war. Using remote controlled missiles to kill people doesn't make them any less dead. If we switched it around and instead put some troops on the ground, gave them a rocket launcher, and they shot inside of a building and killed some people, that would be an act of war. So using technology to blow people up and using troops to blow people up both produce the same end result: Dead people.

If another country started launching remote controlled missiles on American soil, we would sure as hell take that as an act of war!

The rest of your post, I completely agree with.
edit on 26-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


From your own quote:


a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I think that quote is referring to something like a civil war rather than some petty personal beef.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join