Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya - By Ron Paul

[test123]

From http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/16/wh...#ixzz1PZP2HTyf

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya.

That’s why I’ve joined several other members of Congress in a lawsuit against President Obama for engaging in military action in Libya without seeking the approval of Congress.

Of course, in 2007, then-Senator Obama spoke passionately about the need to go after the Bush administration for violating the War Powers Act — the very same thing he’s doing now. In fact, while speaking at DePaul University in October of 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama said the following:

“After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.”

We are now taking Barack Obama’s past advice and standing up to the executive branch.

Of course, the War Powers Act is hardly an improvement on the U.S. Constitution because it does allow the president to go to war without the approval of Congress. But President Obama refuses to follow this law.

If a president does go to war unilaterally, the War Powers Act requires him to seek Congressional approval within 60 days. The president can get an extension of up to 90 days if he asks for more time — but President Obama did not do this.

His time is up.

The Obama administration recently issued a 38-page paper stating that Obama is not in violation of the War Powers Act because “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Under this argument, President Obama could preemptively launch nuclear weapons against any country in the world without Congressional approval. Obviously, this is not what the Founders intended!

But even aside from violating the Constitution, it makes no economic sense for us to be engaged in yet another war overseas — especially during such tough economic times. For years now, we’ve been sending foreign aid to the very same Libyan government we’re now spending $10 million a day to fight. And it has been recently discovered that the Federal Reserve’s bank bailouts even benefited the Libyan National Bank. Now, we’re taxing the American people to bomb the very nation that we taxed them to prop up.

This makes no sense at all.

The Founding Fathers did not intend for the president to have the power to take our nation to war unilaterally without the approval of Congress.

It’s time for the president to obey the Constitution and put the American people’s national interest first.

Rep. Ron Paul represents Texas’s 14th Congressional District and is a Republican candidate for president.

[Dimmauk]

I guess Obama should listen to Ron Paul and call back all the troops from all countries too?

[Bregor]

I guess Obama should listen to Ron Paul and call back all the troops from all countries too?

[Kaslo]

Haha at thinking a court would hear a case on the Military Powers of the President.

Political Question doctrine all up in their ass.

[Dimmauk]

Ron Paul did say one time the he thought Bush might get impeached. But he never sued him. LOL

[Jeryhn]

Under this argument, President Obama could preemptively launch nuclear weapons against any country in the world without Congressional approval. Obviously, this is not what the Founders intended!

Obviously, the Founders intended for us to launch nuclear weapons only with Congressional approval.

Which most likely means we'd never launch a nuclear weapon ever because Congress accomplishes nothing.

[Ksandra]

All I learned from this is Ron Paul needs better writers.

[archibaldcrane]

I think Ron Paul needs to support our troops.

[Kuya]

I wonder if anything will come of this. The imperial presidency has been a real problem for a while now.

[Alleya]

I wonder if anything will come of this. The imperial presidency has been a real problem for a while now.

If we end the wars, defense contractors don't get to make bombs and bullets, and the politicians they support don't have the money to get re-elected. Or they complete the impossible and end the wars, and cause massive unemployment in the defense sector, thereby not getting reelected.

If Paul wins the presidency, he'll do a 180 on this just like everyone else. This is a stunt for his campaign.

[Marootsoobutsu]

If we end the wars, defense contractors don't get to make bombs and bullets, and the politicians they support don't have the money to get re-elected. Or they complete the impossible and end the wars, and cause massive unemployment in the defense sector, thereby not getting reelected.

If Paul wins the presidency, he'll do a 180 on this just like everyone else. This is a stunt for his campaign.

I doubt it. Paul won't win the presidency, for the same reason that I that-- if he DID win-- he wouldn't do a 180... Paul's an ideologue to far too great an extent to seriously succeed with the US election systems. Keep in mind, Paul was extremely vocal against Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan-- NOT the kind of verbage that is going to win you the Republican primary. Also, it's not just Republicans in this law suit; three Democrats (though really, Kucinich is a Democrat to the degree Paul is a Republican...), are also part of this.

[archibaldcrane]

It's annoying that we're worried about this conflict, where U.S. lives aren't being lost and a small amount is being spent relative to everything else our military has done for the past decade, but if it starts a a larger debate of "maybe everything the military does is NOT always good" then whatever.

Of course it'll accomplish nothing, Obama's lawyers will crush this argument.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Of course it'll accomplish nothing, Obama's lawyers will crush this argument.

I'm curious, on what grounds?

[Talint]

I'm curious, on what grounds?

Well, for one thing, you can't sue the president.

[Tristam]

I didn't want to start a new political thread, so this thread seems as good a place as any. I'm not sure if anyone saw the orgy of demagoguery masquerading as a debate for the republicans, but after reading this article I was stunned at how appropriate it is. I have many advisors and superiors, people in science who are very objective and rooted in the real world, who are republicans it seems because they always have been. They are increasingly distressed at the direction their party is headed, I suspect for the reasons discussed below.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...077943,00.html

Is the republican party now strictly an ideological machine? How on earth did something like this happen after the cold war? When I think about Bush administration treatment of science (selectively neutering studies done by the EPA and FDA, among other things), how do we not think of Lysenkoism? People quote founding fathers inappropriately on almost a daily basis, as if history was entirely subjective. I know there are problems with the Obama administration in terms of the constitution and executive rights, so I wonder if ideological refutations of reality are becoming the norm for politics in general. Do democrats engage in historical revisionism and ideological absurdities to this extent? Honest question. I actually don't know how people make objective decisions about policy anymore. I wanted to get other folks' opinions, but if this is too tangential, feel free to disregard.

[Plow]

I doubt it. Paul won't win the presidency, for the same reason that I that-- if he DID win-- he wouldn't do a 180... Paul's an ideologue to far too great an extent to seriously succeed with the US election systems. Keep in mind, Paul was extremely vocal against Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan-- NOT the kind of verbage that is going to win you the Republican primary. Also, it's not just Republicans in this law suit; three Democrats (though really, Kucinich is a Democrat to the degree Paul is a Republican...), are also part of this.

But you have to remember, the liberals are so pissed at Obama for not succeeding in full universal public health care that their only obvious course of action is to vote for someone that literally argues that denying emergency medical care to 5 year olds is just dandy.

[Kaslo]

I'm curious, on what grounds?

Political Question doctrine. It's a non-justicable issue.

[test123]

worth a watch

[Plow]

worth a watch

More worth a watch is his response to rather or not it should be ok for an emergency room to deny service to a 5 year old.

[Alleya]

I doubt it. Paul won't win the presidency, for the same reason that I that-- if he DID win-- he wouldn't do a 180... Paul's an ideologue to far too great an extent to seriously succeed with the US election systems. Keep in mind, Paul was extremely vocal against Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan-- NOT the kind of verbage that is going to win you the Republican primary. Also, it's not just Republicans in this law suit; three Democrats (though really, Kucinich is a Democrat to the degree Paul is a Republican...), are also part of this.

My point wasn't whether or not he'd win--it's that if he did, he'd find himself in the same position as every president who has tried to change anything about the defense system in the last couple decades. They can't even cancel a missile program without being called traitors. Attempting to end the wars is political suicide. You lose the support or major funding mechanisms and political powerhouses, and you directly kill jobs. There's no way to change the system without destroying your political career, and no one ambitious enough to run for the presidency is going to want to do that regardless of their ideals. Being a politician means compromising your ideals, and Paul is no different. He's just good at appearing not to.