See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War
Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Published: Oct 3, 2002
Author: Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Post Date: 2007-04-03 20:34:01 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 5437
Comments: 267
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002 The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan. Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990. The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution. Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution. Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed! A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice. However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions. In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts. What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people! A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace. History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities. The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur – what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown. It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment. An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war. Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home. Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. 
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-156) not displayed.
.
.
.
#157. To: BeAChooser (#155)
Bravo, that's the way to hound someone.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Ahhhh. Chooser tactic number one. Changing the subject. But back to the point. You are a proven serial liar. Why should we take your word for anything? You have been shown to use fake references. Why should we believe any of your cites?
.
Are you incapable of visiting the link Nolu provided for Annex F? Are you incapable of visiting the revised link I provided to Annex F?
Well the UN said he made it. Did you know that?
Ahhh. Chooser tactic number one, hurling insults. But back to the point, you have been proven to be a serial liar this evening. You have fabricated evidence for your bullshit and you have posted fake quotes. Why should we now take your word for anything?
.
Why should we believe anythihg you say? You are a proven serial liar.
.
Just keep digging your hole deeper, ...
Then why was Rumsfeld selling him missiles?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Is that some sort of threat? Does it bother you to be exposed for what you are? A proven serial liar who makes up quotes and then posts bogus links to support them?
.
Apparently robin doesn't realize that all the photos I posted where taken BEFORE the roof collapsed. They either show a hole that is much larger than 20 feet or those firemen are mighty small. ROTFLOL!
He's trying to say the 9/11 Commission is not the govt. The seismic data and the 9/11 Commission say 10 seconds, but the 9/11 truth movement says 14 seconds, per video evidence. The 9/11 truth websites explain very carefully how the falling building met with no resistance from the floors beneath them, which is why they fell so fast, not quite freefall, which 9.2 seconds. The energy released pulverized cement and threw large steel beams like arrows into neighboring buildings. The steel core disappeared. The buildings fell with symmetry. They were demolished with preset explosives. Opportunities to set the explosions have also been explained in eyewitness testimony about odd work done in the weeks before 9/11.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Figures......after all his hero is dickhead!
Keep digging your hole deeper, ... You are only making a complete mockery of this forum.
Why don't you make up a fake quote to support that and then post a link to a defunct government site to support the quote? Maybe some fool won't click the link and will buy your bullshit.
.
That really does explain everything.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
If you don't like being exposed for the type of slimebag that posts fake quotes and bogus links, then act like a normal human being and stop doing it. Don't threaten other people for exposing your slime.
.
As opposed to what ... has tried to do since I joined 4um? ROTFLOL!
A facade is not a roof, so as usual his comments have no meaning. http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/damage/compare.html
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Maybe if there is a change of government in Israel, some action will happen. Nethanhyu may be the man who could strike Iran. Otherwise, unless some disaster happen in US, they will keep talking. Same situation as the one we have seen before in Korea and in nazi Germany. Posted by: Rémi Houle | 4-Apr-07 7:07:51 AM Friends of yours, oozer?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
I am just exposing you for the liar that you are. You posted a fake quote and a bogus link to support it. You did it twice within an hour. Both times you needed that particular quote to save your ass. I am doing a public service. If you don't like people knowing what you are, then change.
.
Is truth realy that horrible to you? Creepy.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
I thought your position was explained to you. We know what a lying scumbag you are. We let you on so we could kick you around. You were told that from the start. It's on the public board.
.
Frankly, I don't understand why chrissie and zip feel the need to let this dickwad continue to spread this bullshit on their forum. Just about the time you think its done, back it comes with the original bullshit. Big waste of time to continually explain to lurkers and readers all the bullshit that is being flung at the fan by this government shill. Personally, I believe when shills act like this they should be forced to have a tag line, in bold red, explaining they are a shill and/or troll. EDIT: Any more comments, robin, I would prefer be private mail--I don't want to add to the bumping of this drivel.
Like the health warning on cigarettes ;)
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
No, I'm saying that the 9/11 Commission got it wrong and
they are NOT the official report on what happened to the WTC towers. That was
published by NIST. FALSE. The seismic data does
not say 10 seconds. Lerner-Lam (a well known seismologist) said "There is
no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the
towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in
context." http://911review.com/errors/w
tc/seismic.html "In fact the seismic evidence from the Palisades station
comports well with the sequence of destruction evident in photographs and
videos: each tower was consumed by a wave of destruction that started near the
crash zone and moved downward as it generated an expanding cloud of rubble. It
took about ten seconds for the bottom of this cloud to reach the ground and
another eight seconds for its top to reach the ground. Likewise the seismic
records show small disturbances lasting for about ten seconds, followed by
large spikes lasting for about eight seconds." What? Don't believe
your own eyes, robin, when you look at a video?
{Anybody remember Ike & Tina Truner?} Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Truth a-gettin' stronger I gotta say “LIAR!” Boom-Baka-Baka-Baka Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! His lies are so nitty-gritty Don't ya know ‘bout that LIAR Boom-Baka-Baka-Baka Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Come on BAC, you LIAR! Boom-Baka-Baka-Baka Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Mood is here to make BAC mo-ove Truth makes BAC a LIAR! LIAR!
ROTFLOL! As usual robin just demonstrates that she doesn't know what she is talking about. It was the roof of the section of the Pentagon that collapsed. In fact, robin proves she doesn't even know the definition of facade to use the term in this case.
Chooser, you are a proven serial liar. PROVEN. SERIAL. You did it in public, you got caught and you did it more than once. You posted fabrricated quotes backed up by bogus links. You did it twice. You got busted for it. You did it before this too, but peope gave you the benefit of the doubt at first. Why in the name of God should we believe or even care what you say from this point forward?
.
hehehehehehe
Did you photoshop that picture chooser? That is the sort of thing I would expect from a guy who makes up quotes and posts fake links to support them.
.
She believes her eyes. I don't think she believes the dishonest shit that you are known to fabricate.
.
Does this look like a hole that is no larger than 20 feet in diameter, folks? Facade Fa`[,c]ade" (f[.a]`s[.a]d" or f[.a]`s[=a]d"), n. [F., Robin was quoting and the quote was accurate - whether BAC approves or not. BAC is a "LIAR!"
Thanks SKY. I would bozo this thread, but I have a theory that BAC only tries to destroy threads that have the most dangerous truth in them.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Tom, I think I made it very clear I was referring to a hole seen in several photos. The one you repeated is simply the wing shaped hole to the left of the central circular hole where the fuselage hit. And yes, the portion behind the white car is over 20 feet wide (more like 35 feet). But now add in the hole where the fuselage hit (another 15 feet or more) and the wing shaped hole to the right of the fuselage hole (another 30 feet or so). The photo identified as a collage of what the impact site looked like before the collapse gives you a better idea of what I'm talking about: Now I ask you ... does that match Kwiatkowski's description? Clearly not.
Thanks .
Where do you get all those wonderful toys?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
In the first picture in this (#148) post, there are arrows indicating "left wing impact damage extending beyond the impact hole" showing, well, very little damage. Where is the wing in that picture? Oh, it completely vaporized upon impact. Where's the fuel burns on the facade of the Pentagon from the wing tanks-- towards the bottom there? Oh,... Where's the engine (yes the one that is 7 foot in diameter and weighs about 9800 pounds--about 5 TONS). Oh, it completely vaporized upon impact, too. Only when these massive Rolls Royce engines hit a wall of the Pentagon do they completely vaporize. Like the photo of the woman hanging out of the WTC while molten steel is allegedly dripping all over the place proved that building wasn't melting down, this photo indicates NO DAMN 757 HIT THE PENTAGON.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
robin's "facade"
Yeah, it does! So you have 90 feet of damaged "facade" - but no hole big enough to account for more than a two-seat Cessna 150 - at best. Or, should we not look into that "smoke" (less the mirrors) on the left side?
In this first photo, no airplane wing or engine attached thereto hit to the right of the impact center. Didn't hit to the left of the impact area, either.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Comments (198 - 267) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#158. To: BeAChooser (#155)
So are you denying ever posting at LP or are you saying that posting at LP would have been beneath you?
#159. To: ..., Nolu_Chan, ALL (#145)
You have absolutely no credibility. How do I know you are not making that up like you did that last quote you posted to me?
#160. To: Dakmar, ALL (#147)
Who sold Saddam the Sarin, you suppose?
#161. To: BeAChooser (#159)
Are you incapable of visiting the link Nolu provided for Annex F?
#162. To: BeAChooser (#160)
Well the UN said he made it. Did you know that?
#163. To: ..., ALL (#149)
#164. To: BeAChooser (#160)
#165. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#163)
Just keep digging your hole deeper, ...
#166. To: robin, ALL (#151)
Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight
#167. To: ... (#154)
#168. To: robin (#151)
#169. To: ..., ALL (#152)
Did you fabricate the photos?
#170. To: BeAChooser (#166)
Apparently robin doesn't realize that all the photos I posted where taken BEFORE the roof collapsed.
#171. To: rowdee (#168)
#172. To: BeAChooser (#169)
You are only making a complete mockery of this forum.
#173. To: Dakmar, ..., christine, ALL (#157)
Bravo, that's the way to hound someone.
#174. To: ..., rowdee (#170)
Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight
#175. To: ..., BeAChooser (#162)
#176. To: BeAChooser (#173)
As opposed to what ... has tried to do since I joined 4um?
#177. To: BeAChooser (#173)
As opposed to what ... has tried to do since I joined 4um?
#178. To: BeAChooser (#173)
As opposed to what ... has tried to do since I joined 4um?
#179. To: robin (#171)
(Edited)
#180. To: rowdee (#179)
Personally, I believe when shills act like this they should be forced to have a tag line, in bold red, explaining they are a shill and/or troll.
#181. To: robin (#167)
He's trying to say the 9/11 Commission is not the govt.
The seismic data and the 9/11
Commission say 10 seconds,
The 9/11
truth websites explain very carefully how the falling building met with no
resistance from the floors beneath them, which is why they fell so fast, not
quite freefall, which 9.2 seconds.
#182. To: Christine, beachooser, Minerva, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#133)
you evil liar. you know damn well that your own government reported 10 seconds on one of the towers and the truthers said 14. you've been caught in so many lies yet you persist. who the fuck do you think you're fooling? no one but yourself. i despise you. you enemy of truth.
mood a-gettin' longer too-oo-oo
Facts soundin' so good to me
But I gotta, said I gotta
Yeah, BAC’s just a bad LIAR
BAC’s pants are on fire
Oooh yeah, what a LIAR
Bak’s-a-saka-big-saka poo
Truth's in your city too-oo-oo
Reality's gettin' right to me
But now don't ya, I said don't ya
Yeah, don't ya know BAC’s the LIAR
Baby, baby, he’ll never ever TIRE
Oooh man, that sorry damn LIAR
Bak’s-a-saka-big-saka poo
Don't ya wanna come clean, LIAR!
Oooh yeah! You rotten LIAR!
Pants are on fire; big fire!
Come on BAC baby – you LIAR!
A little bit-a-the-truth - LIAR!
We know you’re such a LIAR!
Said your pants are on fire!
Bak’s-a-saka-big-saka poo
Time's here for BAC to moo-oo-oove
BAC-less soundin' so good to me
BAC’s got two lying faces
Yeah, BAC you’re a LIAR!
Face it, you’re just a LIAR!
Oooh yeah you LIAR!
BAC’s just a LIAR!
C'mon BAC, you LIAR!
Always the LIAR!
LIAR!
LIAR!
LIAR!
BAC is the LIAR!
#183. To: robin, ALL (#174)
A facade is not a roof
#184. To: BeAChooser (#181)
No, I'm saying that the 9/11 Commission got it wrong
#185. To: SKYDRIFTER (#182)
#186. To: BeAChooser (#183)
It was the roof of the section of the Pentagon that collapsed.
#187. To: BeAChooser (#181)
What? Don't believe your own eyes, robin, when you look at a video?
#188. To: BeAChooser (#148)
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, an eyewitness at the Pentagon on 9/11: ...the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter.
I have to assume you are speaking of the only "hole" in the photo, in the background of the white car, which does appear to be somewhat larger than twenty feet. Is this the Hole you reference?
#189. To: beachooser, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#183)
ROTFLOL! As usual robin just demonstrates that she doesn't know what she is talking about. It was the roof of the section of the Pentagon that collapsed. In fact, robin proves she doesn't even know the definition of facade to use the term in this case.
fr. It. facciata, fr. faccia face, L. facies. See Face.]
(Arch.)
The front of a building; esp., the principal front, having some architectural pretensions. Thus a church is said to have its fa[,c]ade unfinished, though the interior may be in use.
#190. To: SKYDRIFTER (#189)
#191. To: tom007, robin, ALL (#188)
to assume you are speaking of the only "hole" in the photo, in the background of the white car, which does appear to be somewhat larger than twenty feet. Is this the Hole you reference?
#192. To: BeAChooser (#191)
#193. To: BeAChooser (#191)
#194. To: BeAChooser, Robin, christine, tom007, SKYDRIFTER, BTPHoldings (#148)
(Edited)
#195. To: robin, ALL (#190)
I have a theory that BAC only tries to destroy threads that have the most dangerous truth in them.
#196. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#191)
Now I ask you ... does that match Kwiatkowski's description?
BAC is a "LIAR!"
#197. To: BeAChooser (#195)
.
.
.