Washington – Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) is quickly establishing himself as a leading opponent of President Obama’s Libya policy. Earlier today, the freshman introduced a resolution to reassert congressional authority over matters of war. To make his point, Paul quoted, in the legislative language, from Obama’s 2007 remarks on the subject: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
According to Paul’s office, “the measure aims to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war.”
On the budget, the EPA, and foreign policy he has quickly shown himself to have more brains and more guts than any of his colleagues.
Now if only our friends at Fox would start treating Sen. Paul as a voice of authentic conservatism on Libya, rather than constantly turning defense/foreign policy discussions over to lefties like McCain, Lieberman, and Graham....
Rand Paul is establishing himself as the conservatives conservative in the Senate. Whether is is on fiscal matters or foreign policy he is setting the tone.
Now if only Republicans would show Kristol the door the party would be in much better shape.
Paul is not advocating a Conservative position on foreign policy, and is advocating a Liberal, Living Constitution position on the Constitution in this case....he is not in any way shape or form a Constitutional Originalist.
See Prof. Robert Turner's work on War Powers, Paul is advocating something that was a Liberal idea in the 70's and is far removed from Constitutional Originalism and original intent.
Senator Paul isn't being "conservative" (or "liberal") - he's just reading the Constitution and drawing what I think is a proper conclusion about the President's power to deploy the military in the absence of a law authorizing him to do so.
If the President had an "R" after his name, some Senator with a "D" after his name would be doing what Senator Paul is doing and people with "R"s after their name would be calling him an un-American traitor who hates America and who wants the terrorists to win and who wants to hobble the President's ability to Defend America, etc.
So perhaps pretending that there is a "conservative" or "liberal" side to this issue is a bit foolish.
That being said, I'm not sure what the long-term answer is. As long as the U.S. has a big military, Presidents will deploy the military either without Congressional say-so or with Congressional "approval" only as a matter of courtesy and good politics. And there will always be some sort of "reason" that sounds minimally good to enough of the public and enough of the Congress to keep him from being impeached for abusing his power.
Maybe the War Powers Act should be amended to simply authorize short-term, non-defensive and limited military engagements (right now it sorta does, and sorta doesn't - it's either deliberately written vaguely or incompetently written badly). Or perhaps Congress can start writing defense appropriations bills to hobble the President's ability to spend money for the use of force in non-defensive situations without separate authority from Congress.
But as long as Members of Congress are either afraid to "not support the troops" or "not support the Commander in Chief in Time of War" or are willing to call one another "traitors who hate America and who want the [terrorists/communists/Islamists/Martians] to win" or "fastidious greeneyeshade fusspots" when they point out that the President is treating the military as his own personal army, we're going to have this problem. (Not to mention that Federal judges, who arguably have the constitutional authority to enjoin unconstitutional military conduct by the President, usually just duck under a bed when someone tries to file a lawsuit on the issue - and I can't really blame them.)
It will end when a President is actually impeached and removed from office - and that won't happen except in the case of some unmitigated military disaster. But given the amount of blood that has been spilled in - and the mixed results of - unauthorized non-defensive military ventures without much more than minimal political rammifications, I wouldn't hold my breath about it happening.
I've got to admit, Paul scared me for a while, especially after that dust-up he got into during the campaign about the Civil Rights Act. That was politically clumsy. But, he has nicely recovered, and has quickly found his voice in the Upper House.
While I think a 2012 presidential or even vice presidential run is ridiculously premature, he does have a bright future ahead of him.
With Paul, Lee, Rubio and Toomey, the GOP has a great foundation to build on in the Senate in coming years.
Of course Paul is advocating the conservative position. Back in 1950, Mr Conservative Robert Taft said Truman could not commit troops to Korea without congressional approval. Liberal historians Henry Steele Commager and Arthur Schlesinger said Taft was wrong. Years later both men admitted Taft had been right.
I quibble with Rand Paul at times because his libertarian philosophy and my conservative philosophy diverge. But I don't have any quibble with this. I think it was well stated. If he had been a democrat and given this speech against a Republican president, he would be lauded and be on all the sunday morning talk shows. My guess is that, while he may be asked to be on the shows, it will only be for the limited purpose of getting his view on why the GOP is betraying the Tea Party on the budget...
@Bart -- forget the equivalency. The only party that calls the other party traitors is the democrat party. They don't hesitate at even the highest levels to do so. The Republicans don't. We might feel that way as to certain dems (Kerry), but we don't say it.
Moreover, Republican Presidents have sought congressional approval for their actions. George Bush did so every time. It was only when the Congress approved military force and then tried to cut the legs out from under the mission financially or by undermining morale (harping on Abu Ghraib, using word quagmire, talking about thousand of body-bags, "General Betray us" etc.) that thoughts of using the "T" word bubbled up.
Congress could Defund Lybia at anytime, if Paul were serious(or knew what Constitution actually says, means and has historically been used for) he would be doing this, not citing Liberal Living Constitution position on War Powers.
Sean B: You don't really believe this, do you? Try doing a search for "Democrat" and "traitor" on the Internet. You get 2,670,000 hits (2,140,000 hits for "Republican" and "traitor" but I'll call it a draw)- - one of the most popular of which relates to a book by Ann Coulter entitled, uh, "Treason". Democrats and Republican generaly and vaguely differ in certain ways - but not in character or temperament or the lack thereof.
That aside, take a look at any list of U.S. military actions: many have been authorized by law or were at least arguably in furtherance of the President's power and duty to execute the laws. But there are dozens that don't fall into either category and I can't find much of a relationship between whether they don't fall into either category and whether the President at the time was a D or an R. (President G.W. Bush was pretty good on this score, but even he on occasion had to stretch the notion of a "war on terror" beyond that authorized by those laws Congress passed in response to the 9/11 attacks in to authorize the Iraq War.)
None of this, in any event, helps solve the problem: Is there any mechanism short of impeachment by which we can effectively keep Presidents from using the military without Congressional authorization? Or are we content with the status quo in which Presidents just take their chances? That may not be the worst thing in the world - we've been operating this way since at least 1806.
"Congress could Defund Lybia at anytime, if Paul were serious(or knew what Constitution actually says, means and has historically been used for) he would be doing this, not citing Liberal Living Constitution position on War Powers."
Sen. Paul regretably lacks the unilateral power to defund the Libyan war. Obama's party controls the U.S. Senate, and the Republicans in the House probably include just enough Bill Kristol acolytes that there's a majority in favor of even the most pointless, counterproductive and incoherent wars such as this one.
But making the point that congressional approval is necessary for war (short of an attack on us, or imminent direct threat to the U.S., which obviously isn't in play here) has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Living Constitution."
The Living Constitution is the false and anti-republican theory that the meaning of the Constitution changes with the times, and that judges are best positioned to discern what changes should be deemed to have been made. Proper jurisprudence as advocated by Justice Scalia and others is based on the original public MEANING of constitutional provisions (not "original intent", as lefties usually describe it, since that would involve trying to read the minds of long dead people).
What Senator Paul is advocating is the original public meaning of the constitutional provision granting authority over declarations of war to Congress, not to the President. And he is completely correct, regardless of which party's ax is gored as a result.
@Bart -- I did not intend to include commentators or private citizens in my comment. (perhaps I should have left the "General Betray-Us" bit out -- that was Moveon.org). It was the democrat leadership and elected democrat politicians versus republican leadership and elected politicians i was distinguishing. I confess that many commentators and private citizens have called individual dems traitors -- and rightly so.
I hope my clarification helps.
Those in Congress who claim Obama is acting outside his constitutional authority should sue if they want the matter resolved by SCOTUS. It's rather transparent when someone goes around yelling this or that is "unconstitutional" but refuses to seek to settle the question.
Regardless of one's view on the powers of any president to take us to war, is it too much to ask for at least a non-binding Congressional resolution on Libya?
Or are the Democrats too afraid to be on the record for Hillary's war and are the Republicans too afraid to be on the record against it?
Except for Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Richard Lugar, and Dennis Kucinich and his merry band of Leftists, the total lack of comment and concern on the part of individual representatives and senators on this looming disaster has been a disgrace.
"Those in Congress who claim Obama is acting outside his constitutional authority should sue if they want the matter resolved by SCOTUS. It's rather transparent when someone goes around yelling this or that is 'unconstitutional' but refuses to seek to settle the question."
Estragon, the Supreme Court doesn't have and doesn't claim authority to settle every constitutional question. Most issues related to war-making authority, like the requirement that the Federal government ensure that each state has a republican form of government, and a number of other separation of powers issues, falls under SCOTUS' Political Question Doctrine. That means an action may be unconstitutional, but the courts do not have the authority to make that determination.
Constitutional government requires a vigilant public and a vigorous assertion of constitutional limits by EACH of the three branches of the Federal government (plus the state governments). It's not just a matter of defering to whatever the Supreme Court thinks.
Nice work DR. Paul. i don't understand the negative comments about the senator. The man believes in the constitution, which they ALL take oath in preserving.....and here were are, some in this post think he's a 'jerk' for following it. AMAZING.
God bless Senator Paul!
On the budget, the EPA, and foreign policy he has quickly shown himself to have more brains and more guts than any of his colleagues.
Now if only our friends at Fox would start treating Sen. Paul as a voice of authentic conservatism on Libya, rather than constantly turning defense/foreign policy discussions over to lefties like McCain, Lieberman, and Graham....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRand Paul is establishing himself as the conservatives conservative in the Senate. Whether is is on fiscal matters or foreign policy he is setting the tone.
Now if only Republicans would show Kristol the door the party would be in much better shape.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePaul is not advocating a Conservative position on foreign policy, and is advocating a Liberal, Living Constitution position on the Constitution in this case....he is not in any way shape or form a Constitutional Originalist.
See Prof. Robert Turner's work on War Powers, Paul is advocating something that was a Liberal idea in the 70's and is far removed from Constitutional Originalism and original intent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSenator Paul isn't being "conservative" (or "liberal") - he's just reading the Constitution and drawing what I think is a proper conclusion about the President's power to deploy the military in the absence of a law authorizing him to do so.
If the President had an "R" after his name, some Senator with a "D" after his name would be doing what Senator Paul is doing and people with "R"s after their name would be calling him an un-American traitor who hates America and who wants the terrorists to win and who wants to hobble the President's ability to Defend America, etc.
So perhaps pretending that there is a "conservative" or "liberal" side to this issue is a bit foolish.
That being said, I'm not sure what the long-term answer is. As long as the U.S. has a big military, Presidents will deploy the military either without Congressional say-so or with Congressional "approval" only as a matter of courtesy and good politics. And there will always be some sort of "reason" that sounds minimally good to enough of the public and enough of the Congress to keep him from being impeached for abusing his power.
Maybe the War Powers Act should be amended to simply authorize short-term, non-defensive and limited military engagements (right now it sorta does, and sorta doesn't - it's either deliberately written vaguely or incompetently written badly). Or perhaps Congress can start writing defense appropriations bills to hobble the President's ability to spend money for the use of force in non-defensive situations without separate authority from Congress.
But as long as Members of Congress are either afraid to "not support the troops" or "not support the Commander in Chief in Time of War" or are willing to call one another "traitors who hate America and who want the [terrorists/communists/Islamists/Martians] to win" or "fastidious greeneyeshade fusspots" when they point out that the President is treating the military as his own personal army, we're going to have this problem. (Not to mention that Federal judges, who arguably have the constitutional authority to enjoin unconstitutional military conduct by the President, usually just duck under a bed when someone tries to file a lawsuit on the issue - and I can't really blame them.)
It will end when a President is actually impeached and removed from office - and that won't happen except in the case of some unmitigated military disaster. But given the amount of blood that has been spilled in - and the mixed results of - unauthorized non-defensive military ventures without much more than minimal political rammifications, I wouldn't hold my breath about it happening.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've got to admit, Paul scared me for a while, especially after that dust-up he got into during the campaign about the Civil Rights Act. That was politically clumsy. But, he has nicely recovered, and has quickly found his voice in the Upper House.
While I think a 2012 presidential or even vice presidential run is ridiculously premature, he does have a bright future ahead of him.
With Paul, Lee, Rubio and Toomey, the GOP has a great foundation to build on in the Senate in coming years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course Paul is advocating the conservative position. Back in 1950, Mr Conservative Robert Taft said Truman could not commit troops to Korea without congressional approval. Liberal historians Henry Steele Commager and Arthur Schlesinger said Taft was wrong. Years later both men admitted Taft had been right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI quibble with Rand Paul at times because his libertarian philosophy and my conservative philosophy diverge. But I don't have any quibble with this. I think it was well stated. If he had been a democrat and given this speech against a Republican president, he would be lauded and be on all the sunday morning talk shows. My guess is that, while he may be asked to be on the shows, it will only be for the limited purpose of getting his view on why the GOP is betraying the Tea Party on the budget...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Bart -- forget the equivalency. The only party that calls the other party traitors is the democrat party. They don't hesitate at even the highest levels to do so. The Republicans don't. We might feel that way as to certain dems (Kerry), but we don't say it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMoreover, Republican Presidents have sought congressional approval for their actions. George Bush did so every time. It was only when the Congress approved military force and then tried to cut the legs out from under the mission financially or by undermining morale (harping on Abu Ghraib, using word quagmire, talking about thousand of body-bags, "General Betray us" etc.) that thoughts of using the "T" word bubbled up.
Congress could Defund Lybia at anytime, if Paul were serious(or knew what Constitution actually says, means and has historically been used for) he would be doing this, not citing Liberal Living Constitution position on War Powers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSean B: You don't really believe this, do you? Try doing a search for "Democrat" and "traitor" on the Internet. You get 2,670,000 hits (2,140,000 hits for "Republican" and "traitor" but I'll call it a draw)- - one of the most popular of which relates to a book by Ann Coulter entitled, uh, "Treason". Democrats and Republican generaly and vaguely differ in certain ways - but not in character or temperament or the lack thereof.
That aside, take a look at any list of U.S. military actions: many have been authorized by law or were at least arguably in furtherance of the President's power and duty to execute the laws. But there are dozens that don't fall into either category and I can't find much of a relationship between whether they don't fall into either category and whether the President at the time was a D or an R. (President G.W. Bush was pretty good on this score, but even he on occasion had to stretch the notion of a "war on terror" beyond that authorized by those laws Congress passed in response to the 9/11 attacks in to authorize the Iraq War.)
None of this, in any event, helps solve the problem: Is there any mechanism short of impeachment by which we can effectively keep Presidents from using the military without Congressional authorization? Or are we content with the status quo in which Presidents just take their chances? That may not be the worst thing in the world - we've been operating this way since at least 1806.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Congress could Defund Lybia at anytime, if Paul were serious(or knew what Constitution actually says, means and has historically been used for) he would be doing this, not citing Liberal Living Constitution position on War Powers."
Sen. Paul regretably lacks the unilateral power to defund the Libyan war. Obama's party controls the U.S. Senate, and the Republicans in the House probably include just enough Bill Kristol acolytes that there's a majority in favor of even the most pointless, counterproductive and incoherent wars such as this one.
But making the point that congressional approval is necessary for war (short of an attack on us, or imminent direct threat to the U.S., which obviously isn't in play here) has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Living Constitution."
The Living Constitution is the false and anti-republican theory that the meaning of the Constitution changes with the times, and that judges are best positioned to discern what changes should be deemed to have been made. Proper jurisprudence as advocated by Justice Scalia and others is based on the original public MEANING of constitutional provisions (not "original intent", as lefties usually describe it, since that would involve trying to read the minds of long dead people).
What Senator Paul is advocating is the original public meaning of the constitutional provision granting authority over declarations of war to Congress, not to the President. And he is completely correct, regardless of which party's ax is gored as a result.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe: Scott Wilson "With Paul, Lee, Rubio and Toomey, the GOP has a great foundation to build on in the Senate in coming years."
Scott, Rubio is a full bore militarist.
He's a NeoCon in Tea Party clothing. Sorry...
P.S. Allen West is Rubio war-monger squared.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy boy's battin a thousand lately
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Bart -- I did not intend to include commentators or private citizens in my comment. (perhaps I should have left the "General Betray-Us" bit out -- that was Moveon.org). It was the democrat leadership and elected democrat politicians versus republican leadership and elected politicians i was distinguishing. I confess that many commentators and private citizens have called individual dems traitors -- and rightly so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hope my clarification helps.
Steve,
West just recognizes the war we're in - pity that all too many people have lost sight of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThose in Congress who claim Obama is acting outside his constitutional authority should sue if they want the matter resolved by SCOTUS. It's rather transparent when someone goes around yelling this or that is "unconstitutional" but refuses to seek to settle the question.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRegardless of one's view on the powers of any president to take us to war, is it too much to ask for at least a non-binding Congressional resolution on Libya?
Or are the Democrats too afraid to be on the record for Hillary's war and are the Republicans too afraid to be on the record against it?
Except for Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Richard Lugar, and Dennis Kucinich and his merry band of Leftists, the total lack of comment and concern on the part of individual representatives and senators on this looming disaster has been a disgrace.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Those in Congress who claim Obama is acting outside his constitutional authority should sue if they want the matter resolved by SCOTUS. It's rather transparent when someone goes around yelling this or that is 'unconstitutional' but refuses to seek to settle the question."
Estragon, the Supreme Court doesn't have and doesn't claim authority to settle every constitutional question. Most issues related to war-making authority, like the requirement that the Federal government ensure that each state has a republican form of government, and a number of other separation of powers issues, falls under SCOTUS' Political Question Doctrine. That means an action may be unconstitutional, but the courts do not have the authority to make that determination.
Constitutional government requires a vigilant public and a vigorous assertion of constitutional limits by EACH of the three branches of the Federal government (plus the state governments). It's not just a matter of defering to whatever the Supreme Court thinks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice work DR. Paul. i don't understand the negative comments about the senator. The man believes in the constitution, which they ALL take oath in preserving.....and here were are, some in this post think he's a 'jerk' for following it. AMAZING.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse