Ron Paul: 'Republican control of the Senate = expanded neocon wars'
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by In_The_Wind (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Reason
?h=247&w=500
Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/04/ron-paul-warns-republican-control-of-the
Despite all the Jim Beam and beer, I still can't sleep.
oh08dem
(339 posts)cstanleytech
(28,471 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The president is merely the commander in chief of the military.
The Congress can declare war and the president then commands the army.
Please read the Constitution.
Article I, section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress.
Article II sets forth the authority of the president.
Please read it.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Congress cannot simply declare a war and expect the CiC to order troops into combat on their say-so, it doesn't work that way. You have it backwards.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If Congress declares a war, do you think a president will refuse to send troops into combat?
What are you saying. Have you read the Constitution?
It's pretty clear that Congress is supposed to declare the wars.
I realize that our government does not always work as the Constitution requires. We have fought a lot of secret wars that the Congress did not declare.
But I am talking about the constitutional provisions.
The CIA wars are numerous -- all over the place -- secret wars that were never declared.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)is the ability to command troops and send them into engagements. While the President can, and often does, take military action without a war being declared, I don't know that Congress has ever been able to FORCE a reluctant President to take military action via its power to declare war. Congress therefore has virtually no real power in STARTING wars, but much more power in ending them, because they can cut the funding.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)in fact they don't even want to say anything about it, they're happy leaving all the power with Obama. I don't see how being in the majority changes that.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)more talking heads criticizing Obama for not involving the US in more wars. More neocons means more possible warmongers to invite on Meet the press and that means the message will be changed from that of more restraint to that or more attacks. We will have more Libya type engagement and god forbids, more boots on the ground in places like Syria.
The main point that he got right is more neocons means more likelihood of US getting into wars and I really don't know why any democrat is arguing with him on that.
cstanleytech
(28,471 posts)the military as that power is for the president alone.
C Moon
(13,643 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)more sense than to dig in deeper and put lots of ground troops in Iraq/Syria.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Nice of Racist Grandpa to wait til now to mention it.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Don't lose sleep over it.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I take nothing him or his spawn say as truth. Both are Birchers, and no friend of anything progressive. As EarlG said: 'Fuck Ron Paul.'
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)Just that the neocons are bigger war mongers than Obama.
avebury
(11,197 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)We should be embarrassed when the likes of Ron Paul has to be the anti-war voice. Idiots here still don't get it. Rah Rah. Supporting centrists and war profiteers makes us look like hypocrites. No wonder everyone hates Ron Paul ...anyone who makes you look in the mirror is castigated. He's right. His party are bloodthirsty war mongering opportunists. The problem is Obama goes along for some strange reason.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.