HyPaulthetical Question

Suppose Paul did become President.

If the then Congress gave an official “Declaration of War” on Iran, or China, or Al Qaeda, what would Paul’s responsibility be - officially?
What could happen if he failed to act on that responsibility?

Keli wrote:Suppose Paul did become President.

If the then Congress gave an official “Declaration of War” on Iran, or China, or Al Qaeda, what would Paul’s responsibility be - officially?

He would either sign it ....... or veto it.

And doing neither is the same as signing it, .... is it not.

What could happen if he failed to act on that responsibility?

Him being Commander in Chief, ....... that good question.

Impeachment maybe?

.

Keli,

You're assuming an awful lot there. Congress hasn't declared war since before most of us were born!

If he believed they were justified, he'd sign the legislation. If he were to veto it, they'd need to override it. Overriding the veto of a Congressional war declaration sounds rather fool hardy to me. That would been demanding a President begin a war he doesn't believe in.

So let's for the sake of argument say that were to happen. There is no doubt in my mind Ron Paul would fulfill his Constitutional obligations.

Congress can only declare war, they cannot move troops or direct them in any type of exercise or combat operations. The President is solely responsible for that and that includes whether to honor or not a DOW.

Congress could impeach a President if they felt was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. I'm sure that if they went to the length of issuing a DOW, failure to act on it and protect America would be considered a high crime.

The power to Declare War is an enumerated power of Congress, clearly given it by Article One. Does it need to be approved by the President? I do not believe so, but as Steph mentioned, it hasn't happened since World War II.

If Congress did declare war, however, I suppose that Dr Paul would accept that as being Constitutional and carry out his responsibilities under Article II. I think he puts the Constitution above his personal preferences.

SheikBen wrote:The power to Declare War is an enumerated power of Congress, clearly given it by Article One. Does it need to be approved by the President? I do not believe so, but as Steph mentioned, it hasn't happened since World War II.

If Congress did declare war, however, I suppose that Dr Paul would accept that as being Constitutional and carry out his responsibilities under Article II. I think he puts the Constitution above his personal preferences.

Did Congress authorize the war in Iraq? Is authorizing synonymous with declaring war?

Keli wrote:

SheikBen wrote:The power to Declare War is an enumerated power of Congress, clearly given it by Article One. Does it need to be approved by the President? I do not believe so, but as Steph mentioned, it hasn't happened since World War II.

If Congress did declare war, however, I suppose that Dr Paul would accept that as being Constitutional and carry out his responsibilities under Article II. I think he puts the Constitution above his personal preferences.

Did Congress authorize the war in Iraq? Is authorizing synonymous with declaring war?

Hi Keli,

On that I can definitively say that authorization is not synonymous with a declaration of war.

What Congress did was pay for a war that they were not willing to declare as a war. That is downright weird, and a tad duplicitous. Have the war or don't have it, but if you have it, then fight it to win it and get the heck out of dodge.

Keli wrote:Suppose Paul did become President.

If the then Congress gave an official “Declaration of War” on Iran, or China, or Al Qaeda, what would Paul’s responsibility be - officially?
What could happen if he failed to act on that responsibility?

Someitmes I wonder how you view war. I wonder if you don't view war as a tool to be used by the United States to force other nations to comply with our wishes without regard to whether they pose a real threat or have acted aggressively. The only ledgitimate reason for war is to defend the nation from an agressive enemy. By agressive I mean an enemy that poses a real threat to the safety of this nation, not a preceived threat.

The being said, your question is bogus. First, congress isn't just going to gather up one day and decide to go to war with Iran, or China, or whoever, without provocation. The public would not allow it.

Secondly, any nation acted agressively toward the United States, and we did this as the US Consitution provides, it, be the president going to congress to seek a Declaration of War. The Declaration would state the reasons for war and if it was like the 5 other declarations congress would pledge all the resourses available toward the defead of said enemy.

The truth is that none of us have so much as a clue what any president will actually do if faced with an agressive enemy. I cannot imagine however, any president, including Ron Paul, should he elected, seeking a Declaration of war and then not waging it in a manner to bring it to a successful and quick conclusion.

The whole issue is not about Declarations or Authorizations. The issue is about reasons and commitments. Authorizations allow the president to wage war, but usually doesn't commit congress. At least that has been the case in recent years. The wars congress has authorized in recent years have not been to deal with an agressive enemy or immediate threat. Iraq posed no threat to the US. The threat it posed was to the region around it and to eastern Europe. They are the one's the should have dealt with it. Simnply put, we had no reason to be there. If our congress would have done what it is charged by the Constitution to do, they would have raised the questions as tot he reasoning and not granted the declaration until those questions had been answered to their satisfaction. Instead congress rushed to grant the authority solely becasue of the PR work of the whitehouse and the poll numbers. The fact is we never had a ledgitmate reason to be there and the politicans were not commited to winning.

Ron Paul is not saying he would cower from and agressor. What he is saying is that war should be a last resort in dealing with an agressive enemy. War should not be used to force other naitons into compliance with our views. Congress acting in a Constitutional manner would solve this problem we now seem to have.

Cato wrote:Iraq posed no threat to the US. The threat it posed was to the region around it and to eastern Europe. They are the one's the should have dealt with it. Simnply put, we had no reason to be there. If our congress would have done what it is charged by the Constitution to do, they would have raised the questions as tot he reasoning and not granted the declaration until those questions had been answered to their satisfaction.

There are those that believe that we now live in a global economy and thus what happens in other parts of the world, especially the Middle East, directly effects the United States of America.

You mention an aggressive attack against America. What exactly does an "aggressive attack" consist of? Would that be only a military attack directed at soil of the United States of America or would an economic attack against America be considered aggressive as well? How about an attack against a vital interest with the intent of creating economic havoc against the United States?

The constitution uses the words "common defense and general Welfare" on two occasions. If you look up the meaning of the word "Welfare" in the late 18th century you'll see 2 key words; peace and prosperity and by those definitions an economic attack against the United States of America, whether here or on one of our vital interest throughout the world, would be considered an aggressive attack on America.

Are we only justified in defending ourselves when militarily attacked on our soil?

Aaron wrote:
Are we only justified in defending ourselves when militarily attacked on our soil?

Yes.

You talked about being attack economically. We would not need to concern ourselves with another nation attacing us economically, if we didn't meddle in the soveriegn affairs of other nations. The absolute best approach to foreign policy is a hands off approach. Allow the private sector to trade freely with the world and welcome trade from the world should be our only approach to foreign policy. Our government should not be involved in anyway with the affairs of any other nation.

Alot fo floks don't think this approach will work. The catch is we don't know because it has never been tried. What I know for fact is that our meddling in the affiar sof hter nations has resulted in a numberr of shooting wars. From that we know that our foreign policy is a failure in its present state.

Cato wrote:The absolute best approach to foreign policy is a hands off approach. Allow the private sector to trade freely with the world and welcome trade from the world should be our only approach to foreign policy. Our government should not be involved in anyway with the affairs of any other nation.

Alot fo floks don't think this approach will work. The catch is we don't know because it has never been tried.

That's not true. After Woodrow Wilson obligated us to the League of Nations in 1919 as part of the treaty of Versallies, Congress backed out and we practiced an isolationist policy, which is what your describing, for about 22 years. That policy ended on a clear December morning.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:The absolute best approach to foreign policy is a hands off approach. Allow the private sector to trade freely with the world and welcome trade from the world should be our only approach to foreign policy. Our government should not be involved in anyway with the affairs of any other nation.

Alot fo floks don't think this approach will work. The catch is we don't know because it has never been tried.

That's not true. After Woodrow Wilson obligated us to the League of Nations in 1919 as part of the treaty of Versallies, Congress backed out and we practiced an isolationist policy, which is what your describing, for about 22 years. That policy ended on a clear December morning.

First, I am not avocating an isolationist policy. I am avocating a non-interventionist policy. I assume you do know that Woodrow Wilson's intervention into world war 1 is what set the stage to WW2. We had absolutely no ledgitmate reason for entering the conflict between France, England, and Germany. When we did we shifted the balnace of power so enstead of England, France, and Germany eventually settling their difference be either an outright win or by deplomacy, Germany ultimately faced surrender. The Treaty of Versialles was placed in effect and Germany was hobbled. that set the stage for a despot like Hitler and his cronnies. We will never know what would have been the result if we had stayed out of WW1, but the odds are quite good at least the European theatre would have never happened.

The pacific theatre may have happened no matter what we did. Japan was determined to expand their empire, just as we seem to be today. They illustrate a couple of things. First, you may have a strong military, but ultimately you cannot conquer and empire without eventually it falling apart. We need to take a lesson from the defeat of the Japanese. Secondly, one has to wonder what would have happened if the US had kept its miltiary strong and modern. If you remember we were behind at the beginning of WW2. Again we can never know, but there is a good probability that we would have never had to fight Japan.

The main lessons from WW2 is that interference in other nations affairs can have devestating consequences and even if one remains non-interventionist, they still need to maintain a strong and capable military for defence.

Cato wrote:First, I am not avocating an isolationist policy. I am avocating a non-interventionist policy.

Only in Libertarism is that true and I don't buy it. I don't think you can change who or what someone is simply based on Laise Faire capitalism. You can't have it both ways and thats what you're describing.

Cato wrote:I assume you do know that Woodrow Wilson's intervention into world war 1 is what set the stage to WW2. We had absolutely no ledgitmate reason for entering the conflict between France, England, and Germany.

I think you need to brush up on your history paying particular attention to German submarine attacks of American ships.

The bottom line is, you stated this country has never practiced an isolationist policy and that is simply not true. You are wrong. We practiced one from 1919 to 1941 and as a direct result of our congresses refusal to ratify entrance into the League of Nations Hitler came to power in Germany and the rest is history.

You can argue that had Germany not had the treaty of Versallies forced upon them they wouldn't have reacted in the manner they did but that is nothing more then pure speculation that I don't agree with.

I believe just as there are good and decent people in this world, there is also evil people in this world like Hitler that will find a way to unleash their agenda and pretending they won't or ignoring them won't change that.[quote]

Aaron wrote:Only in Libertarism is that true and I don't buy it. I don't think you can change who or what someone is simply based on Laise Faire capitalism. You can't have it both ways and thats what you're describing.

First, Why do we have to change "who or what"? It isn't for us to change anyone or anything in another nation. That responsibility belongs to the citizens of said nation. Over the past 5 decades we have meddled in the affairs of other nations and what have accomplished? Are we safer? Are we more secure? What about our liberties are you as free was your were 50 years ago? The answers to the questions is No. Apperently our interventionist policies haven't been as successful as one would think.

Aaron wrote:I think you need to brush up on your history paying particular attention to German submarine attacks of American ships.

The drivers behind our entry into World War 1 go beyond the attack on the Lusitania. We will never know the workings behind the scenes but I believe that we learn alot about why we entered the war from a statement by Woodrow Wilson.

He stated that "When properly directed, there is no people in the world not fitted for self-government." Notice the cavet "When properly directed". I don't proclaim to know what he meant by that, but one can assume he believed the US could properly direct any nation toward democracy. In fact, when American entered the war Wilson made a now famous statement, "We must make the world safe for democracy".

Aaron wrote:The bottom line is, you stated this country has never practiced an isolationist policy and that is simply not true. You are wrong. We practiced one from 1919 to 1941 and as a direct result of our congresses refusal to ratify entrance into the League of Nations Hitler came to power in Germany and the rest is history.

You can argue that had Germany not had the treaty of Versallies forced upon them they wouldn't have reacted in the manner they did but that is nothing more then pure speculation that I don't agree with.

First, I looked back over my posting and I never did say we weren't isolationist. I stated that I avocate a non-interventionist policy. That is not being isolationist.

Secondly, The treaty of Versallies hobbled Germany economically. Between the depression and the treaty life became a hell for the average German. Additionally, there was a general feeling that Germany should have won the war, but that their leaders sold them out. Hilter came along an capitalised. As I said, we can argue this until the cows come home, but neither of us know what would have happened had the US not entered the War, but the probability is good that without the treaty of Versaillies and our meddleing in WW1, Hilter would have never had the necessary platfrom for his rise to power.

Aaron wrote:I believe just as there are good and decent people in this world, there is also evil people in this world like Hitler that will find a way to unleash their agenda and pretending they won't or ignoring them won't change that.

And that is true. However, it is not our purpose to say this one is evil and that is not, simply becasue they are unfriendly to us, our policies, or don't accept our form of government.

Well Aaron I have to lean a little toward Cato's position on this.

Even though he "hates my guts", as he would put it.

There is a lot of middle ground between isolationism and empire building.

And what the current bunch is doing is pretty much empire building.

But without the real commitment, just sort of an opportunistic attitude of wait till their back is turned and grab their country type of policy.

A sneaky brand of imperialism so to speak.

But any way you look at it, it's a lot easier to take over a country than it is to keep it under control and colonize it.

Especially halfway around the world.

I think you need to brush up on your history paying particular attention to German submarine attacks of American ships.

You might apply that to Pearl Harbor. We had been sinking Jap supply ships in the Pacific for some time. It may have been a "day that would live in infamy", but I don't consider it unprovoked.

Hi Terry,
Perhaps not, but is it possible to truly avoid offense? That is, I really believe in isolationism (and I am not afraid to use the term), but is it possible to avoid pissing off everybody? Even if our government stays out of foreign affairs (and we need to) unless we are attacked or an attack is likely, our "ambassadors" with cameras and tourist dollars can piss off the world, too.

TerryRC wrote:I think you need to brush up on your history paying particular attention to German submarine attacks of American ships.

You might apply that to Pearl Harbor. We had been sinking Jap supply ships in the Pacific for some time. It may have been a "day that would live in infamy", but I don't consider it unprovoked.

Perhaps you can provide a link that describes these attacks.

You will have to dig around for yourself, Aaron. Here is a quick Google.

This is one bit of our history that has been well buried.

You may find it as described as "interdiction" action on the supply routes between the oilfields of Indochina and Japan.

I looked around yesterday before I ask for the link. I knew about the oil embargo of 37 I beleive but I've never heard of Americans attacking and sinking Japense supply ships. I didn't want to just come out and dispute the claim but I've found nothing to support it.

Aaron wrote:I looked around yesterday before I ask for the link. I knew about the oil embargo of 37 I beleive but I've never heard of Americans attacking and sinking Japense supply ships. I didn't want to just come out and dispute the claim but I've found nothing to support it.

I haven't seen a reference to it in many years, Aaron. The only reason I knew about it is that my great uncle served in the Navy in the Pacific, pre-WW2.

Take it for what it is worth, which, like most anecdotal evidence, is probably very little.

TerryRC wrote:I haven't seen a reference to it in many years, Aaron. The only reason I knew about it is that my great uncle served in the Navy in the Pacific, pre-WW2.

Take it for what it is worth, which, like most anecdotal evidence, is probably very little.

I know of the Panay incident and I know there were some incidents around Taiwan but much of that was due to a very aggressive Japanese agenda that began in 1937. I don't think there were incidents similar to what occurred in the Atlantic with the Germans.

At any rate, the subject is isolationism and does it work. I don’t believe it does. I think while we should stay out as much as possible, when you have governments or leaders such as those of the Japanese and Germans of the 1930’s, sooner or later, we’re going to get drawn into the conflict.

TerryRC wrote:This is one bit of our history that has been well buried.

That is because "Only the winners decide what were war crimes".

ziggy wrote:

TerryRC wrote:This is one bit of our history that has been well buried.

That is because "Only the winners decide what were war crimes".

It wouldn't have been a war crime Zig if it occurred before the war, which is what TC is describing.

So who’s supposed to decide what war crimes are, the losers?

And for the record, the Geneva Convention pretty much lays it out what is and isn’t acceptable Now enforcing them is another matter all together.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

TerryRC wrote:This is one bit of our history that has been well buried.

That is because "Only the winners decide what were war crimes".

It wouldn't have been a war crime Zig if it occurred before the war, which is what TC is describing.

I understand that. What I said is just another way of saying that history is written by the victors.

So who’s supposed to decide what war crimes are, the losers?

We need to look at "history" in the contect of that it was not written by the losers- that it is is a one-sided account- and weigh its value accordingly.

And for the record, the Geneva Convention pretty much lays it out what is and isn’t acceptable.

But to be realistic about what is "acceptable", it has to be considered in the context of real people and real situations. Violent military response to reasonable (unreasonable) provocations can be morally defensible, whereas overt military violence to achieve a primarily economic end for the agressor is less morally defensible.

The Geneva Convention notwithstanding, international morality (what is "acceptable") is not absolute. At any moment in time, what is acceptable is relative to the larger picture of what is already happening around and among the several nations.