Texas Congressman Ron Paul files for GOP presidential bid

Ron Paul is one of the only members of Congress who understands what a "Constitutional Declaration of War" is. Here is a press release from back when we first invaded Iraq:

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul, insisting that the House International Relations committee follow constitutional principles, yesterday introduced a formal congressional declaration of war with Iraq. The language of the declaration was very clear: "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq."

"I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions," Paul stated yesterday after a committee hearing. "America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. Congress should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors."

"Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand that the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war before our troops are sent into battle," Paul continued. "One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed," while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be ‘frivolous.’ I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it."

"When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved," Paul concluded. "When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war."

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm

 

That is why we were in a conflict with Iraq, not a war. We won the conflict - Saddam Hussein was removed from power and the Iraqis were given a representative form of government.

We won. Let's bring our troops home now.

What the Iraqis do with what our military paid the price to give them is up to the Iraqis.

 

Some, like Congressman Paul, claim Congress did not make a declaration of war for the Iraqi war. That's absolutely incorrect! The joint resolution approved by Congress is in every way such a declaration and, in fact, far more comprehensive than those previously written. The Constitution doesn't specify a specific form or wording for such declaration. It only states that Congress has the power to declare war and that was done in fine form for this war clearing stating why it was approved and clearly giving the President to power to proceed. Now if only they could all recognize the meaning of "be it resolved" and hold with unity to thier own words.

 

Ron Paul is right! The joint resolution was not a Constitutional Declaration of War, but instead was an act of Congress to dodge the issue and "grant" the President the power to ignore the US Constitution.

Not declaring war provides a way to circumvent constitutional safeguards against the executive declaring war, and also, in some cases, to avoid feeling bound by the established laws of war. Not using the word "war" is also seen as being more public relations-friendly. For these reasons, governments have generally ceased to issue declarations of war, instead describing their actions by euphemisms such as "police action" or "authorized use of force."

This is just another example of the destruction of our Constitutional Republic! If we don't get more Ron Paul's in Washington soon, we can just throw away our Constitution and look towards living in the future under the Bush administration's North American Union!

 

As I've written before on another thread: This is like saying I don't have a "license" because I have a "permit".

The term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, used in our Constitution. It reads, instead, that "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." and leaves it at that. The exact form and manner of such declaration isn't specified.

Here's an extract of what was written by Congress regarding Germany in 1941:

"... Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States"

Here's an extract of what was written by Congress regarding Iraq in 2002:

"... Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, ... The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President ... The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. ..."

Both documents are resolutions of Congress. Both are declarations of war in the sense that Congress authorized the President to engage in war with an enemy. The former document of 1941 is no more "formal" than the latter of 2002 although it is much shorter! Both were resolved and enacted by Congress. Both are every bit as legal, with respect to our Constitution.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 made it clear that:

"It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective [judgment] of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."

That was resolved by Congress to address the ongoing conflict over so-called "undeclared" previous wars. It illustrates that Congress recognized its role and wanted to assert its power in the matter of any future conflicts never mind its repeated funding of wars both past and present.

While the recent resolution does not use the word "declare" it is obvious that the resulting action is, and was intended to be, the prosecution of war under the direction of the Commander-in-Chief. Congress certainly did not enact the resolution thinking there would be no resulting war although one must wonder if they thought it would be without loss of life or limb. If it does not declare that war be prosecuted, then what does it "declare"?

Our warriors deserve to know that the war they're fighting is legal, was authorized by the people of this nation through their elected representatives according to the requirements of our Constitution, is for just causes, the orders of their Commander-in-Chief need to followed, that it can indeed be won, has and is bringing about positive results, and is worth the sacrifices they are making as they execute their duty to our nation. What does it mean to warrior who's engaged with an enemy to be told what they're doing is un-Constitutional because it's not "declared"?

Congress needs to hold to its resolution and stop handing the enemy a victory by it's vacillation.

 

Since we have already accomplished what Bush set out to do - depose Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqis a representative form of government -the Congress needs to pass a new resolution telling the president to remove our troops from Iraq and prosecute the war in Afghanistan to the extend needed to wipe out al Qaeda and its Taliban allies. Just in case anyone has forgotten - al Qaeda with the aid of its Taliban allies attacked the United States on 9/11/2001.

 

If Congress has the will the change their minds and put that into a binding resolution, then the President will have to act accordingly. I certainly hope they don't do that at this point since it would be a serious "about face" equivalent to a retreat.

But, regardless, that doesn't change the legality of the resolution still in place. It is a declaration of war by Congress.

Some folks have indeed forgotten all the reasons - all 23 of them - that we went to war with Iraq.