“I would take this position no matter what the party affiliation were of the President, because I believe very strongly in the Constitutional checks and balances”

That statement alone distinguishes Paul from almost every single Democrat that has held national office in the past 2 years. The craven fawning over Obama as “at least he’s OUR guy” has sickened so many of us. Rand Paul, warts and all, and his dad, Ron Paul, have at least something to be commended for. They aren’t going to suck the cock of any Party boss or headline celebrity of their party. Alas we don’t have anybody with a (D) next to their name with the same set of balls.

“As Scott Lemieux notes, Congress has to actually exert its own power to have any. And they haven’t, not even with the aid of the War Powers Act,”

Mr. Lemieux has it right. After reading articles here, from EmptyWheel, and other places I have came to the conclusion that the reason nothing has been done or to even remove that Bush fav, Patriot Act is because all of them and their friends are shoveling dough in. Honestly, the minute a war on something, other than an actual country is called, there is no limit to contracts and ways for the buddies to make billions off the tax payer.

Good for Rand Paul.

I’ve said for a couple of years that unless the anti-war left work with the genuine Libertarians, who are also anti-war (see the ‘other’ Scott Horton interviews on antiwar.com) there is NO antiwar movement. Ditto human rights & rule of law.

Having said that, I can understand why Ron Paul is a reflexive thorn to lefties; his economics are pure BS. So it would be a hard marriage of convenience to forge on those issues, as important as they are.

And now that Rand, a true nutcase, has muddied the waters, it’s really a no-go.

The problem works the other way too though. See, libertarians will never leave campaign politics out of the peace issue.

Every Denver Peace action I’ve been to has had an issue group, or the Greens sponsor it, and invite the libertarians but make it clear that the only issue is the peace action.

Libertarians never agree to that, so only one or two show up and it’s still with a candidate, and not just the Peace issue.

I’m interested to hear if others have the same experience.

That’s interesting.

Other than my online experience with Scott Horton’s interviews, which I always listen to, I’ve had no real experience with real libertarians.

I’m not surprised at what you say. My son once attended a Libertarian meeting in Manhattan and reported that they are really bizarre Kool Aide drinkers.

This is an area where Congress abdicated its responsibility a long time ago, and it’s unhealthy for the Republic.

This is not entirely true. While It is true that Congress has generally acquiesced in the president initiating war without authorization, it has often used its powers to place limits on war once it has begun, and presidents have generally complied. That is what makes the suggestion that the Obama White House might refuse to comply with congressional limits maddening. (Lederman and Barron make the case here.)

I think calling Rand Paul a “nutcase,” after everything he spoke being actually rational and sane, is rather ridiculous. I could care less about the left-right paradigm; I can’t believe there are people still posting on this blog that believe in that bullshit after Obama has made it perfectly clear that the banks and the Fed run everything. If the banks could steal 40 trillion and not have one of their own go to jail, that tells you all you need to know.

At least Rand Paul is standing up for the Constitution and checks and balances on an issue that should not be ideological to anyone, even those of you still in thrall to the phony “two” party mind control B.S. I think most of the other veterans in the Congress (the 90 that voted this down) know that the government and the empire both parties support is about to crumble, and everyone’s like the Grinch shoving the bags up the chimney before the lights go out in the district of corruption.

it has often used its powers to place limits on war once it has begun, and presidents have generally complied.

Link? Or examples? The only ones I can think of run counter to your assertion. Stuff like Boland Amendment.

I’ve come to the same conclusion. The corporatist oligarchs who own Congress want it this way. And while Rand’s tea-party, eliminate-government, libertarianism is useful and will be leveraged to further corporatist ends, his anti-war initiatives will never be allowed to get off the ground. This vote is a perfect illustration of this.

Doug Stafford is that you?

For six years, Doug Stafford was a lobbyist for the National Right to Work Committee, an anti-labor group financed by business and conservative interests. His job changed last year but his duties did not when he became the chief of staff to Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky.

Not to mention the more fundamental nuttiness. Just bc the USG is corrupt at running monetary policy and other programs, does not automatically mean the mythical market will do it better.

Damn right the Dems have no balls. I actually got a mailer from Chuck Schumer today trying to get dough for the DSCC. The Dems must be desperate if they think the Wall Street Zionist lickspittle, who wouldn’t even stand up for one of his own constituents when he was brutally murdered by the IDF on the Mavi Mamara, is going to generate any funds.

Stick with Goldman Sachs, Chucky Cheese. Get your blood money from the rats.

Same comment as I made to PeasantParty, @10. Rand’s, and Ron’s, attempts to pull the curtain and expose the Fed, not to mention their desire to do away with it, will never be allowed to go anywhere. Not going to happen.

I have my own issues with the Fed, but all reality-based persons with knowledge of economics that I read clearly view the economic prescriptions of Rand and Ron as from somewhere in outer space.

The Paul libertarians can’t be pigeon-holed conveniently in the left/right frame on all issues, even as the right-wing oligarchs play them like the fiddles they are.

Consider me befuddled; I have no idea what you were trying to accomplish with that post.

You challenged my characterization of Rand Paul as nutty. I was just providing a couple of examples.

Look, it doesn’t matter, OK? This country is DONE. The IMF was making plans to convert to a global currency last February, for crying out loud. The globalists are purposely destroying the economy to get the populace to give up the Constitution and bill of rights when the shite really hits the fan. Why do you think we’re in Libya? The last Muslim countries that don’t use central banking systems are getting taken out in preparation for this new global system as well.

You keep using party labels as if they mean something. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

You keep using party labels as if they mean something. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

Who is the “you” in your statement?

The Paul libertarians can’t be pigeon-holed conveniently in the left/right frame on all issues, even as the right-wing oligarchs play them like the fiddles they are.

I acknowledged our common interests in antiwar & civil liberties in 4.

However, the Pauls run for political office with Rs after their names, so they are stuck with their self-identifications.

On edit: Should have added investigation of FRB as a common interest.

interesting conspiracy theory, I’ll give you that.

With regard to Ron Pauls economics, I know many people say its BS. But my thinking is more that Keynesian vs. Austrian is something of a zero-sum game.

Trust must be placed somewhere. Currently, the trust is placed in Bernanke and the FOMC. Ron Paul argues that trust should be placed among 300 million Americans.

My thinking is that over time, its a zero sum game. But at this moment, Bernanke and the Banksters are robbing us blind. So something needs to change. And since Congress has abdicated both war policy and monetary policy for decades, I think the only way to deal with Washington is to throw a bomb in the middle of it… namely Ron Paul.

I want real change on war policy and monetary policy. But virtually no CongressCritter will discuss either one.

Sorry, but I missed the examples. I saw a indirect attack via an associate and a claim about nuttiness, but no examples.

I’m not a fan of the Pauls, but I also don’t see them as being as crazy as many others seem to. And Rand Paul was dead-on WRT Congress abdicating its proper role.

Bernie is a big disappointment on this. I was upset about losing Russ, but I’m glad to see that his successor is standing his ground on the issue of Executive vs. Legislative authority. It seems like such a no-brainer to me.

Trust must be placed somewhere.

Trust must be earned. Or as one prez was known to say: Trust but verify.

In your framing, not necessarily how I would choose to frame it, having 300 million Americans in charge ignores the reality that humans are alpha male animals in evolutionary terms. So I find it a nonstarter on first principles.

Moving beyond that frame, and trying to acknowledge structures I have observed, some of which I have an in-depth knowledge, I would favor a mixed system that allows for both the deeply embedded alpha male reality, but trying to modify it with checks & balances.

That’s my understanding of some of the issues the founders were trying to confront in political terms, and economists were (back in the days before neolibruls got the monopoly over U.S. economic policy) were trying to confront in the era of antitrust and regulation.

The examples were Rand Paul’s (1) labor policy and (2) econ policy of leaving everything up to the “market.”

The article I meant to link to is here (pdf). It is a rather comprehensive history on the subject, arguing that presidents have largely accepted congressional restrictions over our entire history (the worst exceptions being Nixon, Bush I and Bush II). Of course, often the WH has used creative (dishonest) statutory interpretations to avoid such restrictions, especially more recently. The Boland Amendment is interesting, because the Admin refused to comply without suggesting that it was not bound by it.

Here is some examples from the article:

[W]hen Congress provided in November 1993 that funds could be obligated with respect to hostilities in Somalia beyond March 1994 only “to protect American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, and [for] noncombat person- nel to advise the United Nations commander in Somalia,”615 Clinton did not raise a constitutional objection to this limitation, notwithstanding that the provision imposed a restriction on the use of combat forces in an area where hostilities had already broken out.616 In 1997, Clinton did not raise a constitutional objection when Congress passed a law prohibiting the use of Department of Defense appropriations for the deployment of any U.S. ground combat forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina after June 30, 1998, unless the President transmitted to Congress a certification that such deployment was “re- quired in order to meet the national security interests of the United States” (and that such ground forces would not serve as civil police).617

Also worth noting is how carefully Congress provided limited authorizations in examples that are supposed to be precedents for unlimited executive war making like the Quasi-War and the Barbary Pirate Wars.

300 millions alpha males?

Please don’t use any more ethological analogies (unless and until you learn what the h3ck you’re talking about). There can be only one alpha male. That’s the whole point of the concept.

OK. The labor policy was from the associate and you don’t think free markets are optimal. That makes him nutty. Got it. Thanks.

I agree that monetary policy is like fiscal policy. As we see this evening, our form of government demands compromise. And even if Ron Paul got his version of monetary policy, there’d still be huge transitional issues.

I don’t understand economics very well. Frankly, my sense is that it is very much dependent on human nature (as I think you alluded to by your description of alpha males).

I just know that I want real change on war policy and monetary policy. And Obomba hasn’t delivered on either. The sad thing is that by way of Rand Paul’s vote (and a Bernie Sanders “sense of the Senate” vote around April 2, 2009 on Fed transparency issues)… it’s crystal clear that nothing will change with The Incumbent Party.

GregDiablo is right. As long as we characterize people who try to do the right thing as nutcases because they belong to the wrong political party, we get nowhere. The people here and the Libertarians have a lot in common. Obama proves (and the American people realize)that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans – oh, yeah the rhetoric is different – but their behavior once they’re in office is virtually indistinguishable.

We need to find a way end the corporatocracy, stop the never-ending wars and restore our civil liberties. These have become mainstream priorities and yet our elected officials ignore them. Libertarians embrace these ideas as much as FDL-ers but nothing will get done in this country unless we reject the labels and somehow unite against the common enemy.
Only then we can argue in ernest about the proper role of government. Maybe then we could again form political parties which are distinctly different and offer a genuine choice to voters.

Americans no longer think of war being “real war” because they’ve been sold on the concepts of “protecting our national security interests” and “defeating terrorism”. GW Bush, reprehensively, was looked upon by many as an heroic figure. People also have this notion of America’s Military being invincible and bringing democracy and prosperity to all those “backward” countries.

Politicians know that war is big business, not only supplying the military but gaining control of resources around the world. This also applies to the so-called drug wars, where the drugs are used to generate cash to arm mercenaries and favored oligarchies.

The whole sordid, ugly venture is a self-perpetuating scheme, and those who are in control (no, it’s not the President) know exactly how to keep the machine well oiled. It’s like we’ve all become slaves to a monstrous evil empire. Our whole “way of life” depends on feeding the beast.

I meant “reprehensibly” not reprehensively.

Thanks.

Now we’re into the weeds.

On your Somalia example, Black Hawk down was Oct 1993, so anything congress did in Nov 1993 was truly after the fact when no one, not even the prez, would have stayed in Somalia. Only a CYA move by congress, not an assertion of authority of congressional powers over prez in war making.

Too late (midnight my time) to go into details on other examples, but my guess is that they are not strong evidence of your assertion.

The “associate,” if you click on the link, is Rand Paul’s CoS. So he speaks for the rep, didn’t make it up on his own.

If you’re referring to me (no reference in your comment), that was exactly my point, as I explained in 23.

James Madison laid out the reasoning many years ago. Madison insisted that the power of commander in chief be kept separate from the power to take the nation to war: “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.”

Well, Paul showed his colors when he went after a Democrat over the AUMF, when he knows very well that the AUMF authorized Bush to go after the perpetrators of 9/11, not any Tom, Dick or Harry oil-producing nation he felt like, so, yeah, Clinton was absolutely right that she didn’t authorize the Iraq fiasco.

It shrank all at once, on December 20, 1945, with the signing of the United Nations Participation Act establishing how the US would implement United Nations Security Council resolutions:

SEC. 5. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, whenever the United States is called upon by the Security Council to apply measures which said Council has decided, pursuant to article 41 of said Charter, are to be employed to give effect to its decisions under said Charter, the President may, to the extent necessary to apply such measures, through any agency which he may designate’ and under such orders, rules, and regulations as may be prescribed by him, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, in whole or in part, economic relations or rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication between any foreign country or any national thereof or any person therein and the United States or any person subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or involving any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(b) Any person who willfully violates or evades or attempts to violate or evade any order, rule, or regulation issued by the President pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000 or, if a natural person, be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and the officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violation or evasion shall be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both, and any property, funds, securities, papers, or other articles or documents or any vessel, together with her tackle, apparel, furniture, and equipment, or vehicle, concerned in such violation shall be forfeited to the United States.

SEC. 6. The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

On October 10, 1949, in an amendment to the United Nations Participation Act, Congress started walking back its grant of powers to the President.

SEC. 7. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the President, upon i-ha request by the United Nations for cooperative action, and to the extent that he finds that it is consistent with the national interest to comply with such request’ may authorize, in support of such activities of the United Nations as are specifically directed to the peaceful settlement of disputes and not involving the employment of armed forces contemplated by chapter VII of the United Nations Charter-

“(1) the detail to the United Nations, under such terms and conditions as the President shall determine, of personnel of the armed forces of the United States to serve as observers, guards, or in any noncombatant capacity, but in no event shall more than a total of one thousand of such personnel be so detailed at any tone time: Provided, That while so detailed, such personnel shall be considered for all purposes as acting in the line of duty, including the receipt of pay and allowances as personnel of the armed forces of the United States, credit for longevity and retirement, and all other perquisites appertaining to such duty: Provided further, That upon authorization or approve thy the President, such -personnel may accept directly from the United Nations (a) any or all of the allowances or perquisites to which they are entitled under the first proviso hereof, and (b) extraordinary expenses and perquisites incident to such detail;

“(2) the furnishing of facilities, services, or other assistance and the loan of the agreed fair share of the United States of any supplies and equipment to the United Nations by the National Military Establishment, under such terms and conditions as the President shall determine;

“(3) the obligation, insofar as necessary to carry out the purposes of clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection, of any funds appropriated to the National Military Establishment or any department therein, the procurement of such personnel, supplies, equipment, facilities, services, or other assistance as may be made available in accordance with the request of the United Nations, and the replacement of such items, when necessary, where they are furnished from stocks.

“(b) Whenever personnel or assistance is made available pursuant to the authority contained in subsection (a) (1) and (2) of this section, the President shall require reimbursement from the United Nations for the expense thereby incurred by the United States: Provided, That in exceptional circumstances, or when the President finds it to be in the national interest, he may waive, in whole or in part, the requirement of such reimbursement: Provided further, That when any such reimbursement is made, it shall be credited, at the option of the appropriate department of the National Military Establishment, either to the appropriation, fund, or account utilized in incurring the obligation, or to an appropriate appropriation, fund, or account currently available for the purposes for which expenditures were made.

” (c) In addition to the authorization of appropriations to the Department of State contained in section 8 of this Act, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the National Military Establishment, or any department therein, such sums as may be necessary to reimburse such Establishment or department in the event that reimbursement from the United Nations is waived in whole or in part pursuant to authority contained in subsection (b) of this section.

” (d) Nothing in this Act shall authorize the disclosure of any information or knowledge in any case in which such disclosure is prohibited by any other law of the United States.”

Harry Truman first used this authority to enter the war in Korea after finding that the US was unable to blockade Korea because of budget cuts to the Navy.

Congressional action since then has mostly sought to reel the war-making authority of the President back in.

The first time a President acted without the authorization of Congress was James Polk’s invasion of Mexico “in order to repel an invasion”. Abraham Lincoln was not so sure:

Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is, that if it shall become necessary, to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case, the President is to be the sole judge. .. But…: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose – and allow him to make war at pleasure…. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us’ but he will say to you ‘be silent; I see it, if you don’t.’

“The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood

The action in Libya was totally within the authority that Congress has granted Congress. The idea that Obama did not “consult” with Congress is false; he did consult with the Congressional leaders before he began the operation. If Republicans want to play political games with the fact that he did not bring a formal declaration of war, that’s just politics. The President still had the legal authority to act. And if Congress objects to that authority, they can change the law. And if the Supreme Court objects to the law, they can accept a case that challenges the law. The Constitution does not implement itself but is implemented through the three branches of government.

We need to get beyond picking apart the pieces of the national security institutions that were established in the period 1945 – 1947 and revisit the entire complex of US national security institutions. Those institutions are no longer suited to implementing national security in the current global environment. Reconsideration of how wars begin is part of that. And that should start by going back to a philosophy of separation of powers.