The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
Rand Paul's Senate Vote Rolls Back the Warfare State
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Last week, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) reminded Congress that in matters of war, they have the authority and the responsibility to speak for the American people. Most Senators were not too happy about the reminder, which came in the form of a forced vote on whether to allow a vote on his amendment to repeal the Afghanistan and Iraq war resolutions of 2001 and 2002.

It wasn’t easy. Sen. Paul had to jump through hoops just to get a vote on whether to have a vote.

That is how bad it is in Congress! Not only does Congress refuse to rein in presidents who treat Constitutional constraints on their war authority as mere suggestions rather than as the law of the land, Congress doesn’t even want to be reminded that they alone have war authority.

Congress doesn’t even want to vote on whether to vote on war!

In the end, Sen. Paul did not back down and he got his vote. Frankly, I was more than a little surprised that nearly 40 percent of the Senate voted with Rand to allow a vote on repealing authority for the two longest wars in US history. I expected less than a dozen “no” votes on tabling the amendment and was very pleasantly surprised at the outcome.

Last week, Rand said, “I don’t think that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes that these authorizations from 16 years ago and 14 years ago … authorized war in seven different countries.”

Are more Senators starting to see the wars his way? We can only hope so. As polls continue to demonstrate, the American people have grown tired of our interventionist foreign policy, which burns through trillions of dollars while making the world a more dangerous place rather than a safer place.

Some might argue that losing the vote was a defeat. I would disagree. For the first time in years we saw US Senators on the Senate Floor debating whether the president should have authority to take the US to war anywhere he pleases. Even with just the small number of votes I thought we might have gotten on the matter, that alone would have been a great victory. But getting almost 40 percent of the Senate to vote our way? I call that a very good start!

The first step toward rebalancing the separation of powers is for Congress to re-assert its authority and responsibility for declaring war. To this point, Congress has preferred to transfer its war responsibility to the president.

The second step, once Congress understands its obligations, is to convince our representatives that war was not designed to be the first choice in foreign policy, but rather to be the last resort when we are under attack or when a direct attack is imminent!

Just because Congress decides to approve the use of force does not mean that the war is just, justified, or wise. Congress is just as susceptible to war propaganda as the rest of America and unfortunately it is dominated by the false opinion that if you are not enthusiastic about US military solutions to disputes overseas then you are not being tough enough. In fact, it takes far more strength to exercise restraint in the face of the constant war propaganda and disinformation coming from the media and the neocons.

We have achieved a small victory last week, thanks to Senator Paul. But we still have a lot of work to do! We must keep the pressure on and convert more to the cause of peace and prosperity!

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Military, Iraq War, Rand Paul 
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Miro23 says:

    Last week, Rand said, “I don’t think that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes that these authorizations from 16 years ago and 14 years ago … authorized war in seven different countries.”

    Are more Senators starting to see the wars his way? We can only hope so. As polls continue to demonstrate, the American people have grown tired of our interventionist foreign policy, which burns through trillions of dollars while making the world a more dangerous place rather than a safer place.

    Agreed that 40% is a good way to lose.

    Senators are supposed to back every foreign war and follow Neo-con directives, but still, you can’t assume that reaffirming their authority means that they’re going to challenge the Neo-cons.

    I’ll believe it when I see it: A Senate majority vote for disengagement from Empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Someone should tell Rand to be careful for what he asks for … his colleagues might vote to expand the wars to the other 180 or so other countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, who knows what bills these morons will sign ... in order to know what's in them.

    We may end up declaring war on Canada, per Colonel Alex P. Keaton:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtTnnptpZmE
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @The Alarmist
    Someone should tell Rand to be careful for what he asks for ... his colleagues might vote to expand the wars to the other 180 or so other countries.

    Yeah, who knows what bills these morons will sign … in order to know what’s in them.

    We may end up declaring war on Canada, per Colonel Alex P. Keaton:

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    "We're not at war with Canada ... wait, are we?"

    Priceless. Good find.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Randal says:

    The boy done good, for sure.

    Last week, Rand said, “I don’t think that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes that these authorizations from 16 years ago and 14 years ago … authorized war in seven different countries.”

    True words. But it is normal for people to disregard truth when it suits them.

    In just the same way, nobody with an ounce of intellectual honesty could believe that the interstate commerce clause justified drugs prohibition, or that the Fourteenth Amendment justifies all the social liberalism imposed by activist judges in its name.

    When you can’t get the votes for something honestly, get something different voted in and just barefacedly lie about what it means. When you have the media and political elites on your side, that’s all that is needed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    Busybody politicians, left wing media pundits and SJW university professors also use article I, section 8, "to provide for the general welfare" clause to justify special rights, privileges and programs bestowed on undeserving minority groups, racial and other, that far exceed the Congress's authority under the Constitution. Providing for the general welfare is taken wildly out of context since it applies to Congress having the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

    This doesn't grant Congress the right to make blacks the master race via civil rights laws, meddle in the private healthcare industry or provide tax credits to purchase a Toyota Prius or smart car. And most of these progressive initiatives expressly violate the equal protection under the law clause of the 14th amendment since it creates special categories of citizens entitled to special protections not afforded the white majority.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, who knows what bills these morons will sign ... in order to know what's in them.

    We may end up declaring war on Canada, per Colonel Alex P. Keaton:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtTnnptpZmE

    “We’re not at war with Canada … wait, are we?”

    Priceless. Good find.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, good wholesome show with not too much of an agenda, as I recall. The oldest kid, Alex (Micheal J. Fox) was a conservative, while his parents were NPR-type lefties. It was especially funny when Alex would teach Reagan-era conservative/libertarian values to his 5-y/o young brother. Peak Stupidity on non-libertarian values at the public library with nod to the Keaton family.

    "Good find". It's all up in here, Alarmist. Haha. I'm glad you enjoyed the clip.

    Back to Rand Paul and this bill. If we had the old-time Democrats who in the Cold War times wanted the US to unilaterally disarm (bad idea) and to quit being the policeman of the world (good idea) around now, there'd be loads of D votes for the bill. Right now, no, it will not be allowed to pass. Just like the Feral Gov't healthcare votes back in '09, they will pretend there is a big fight for your wishes, but you will never get your way, if you are liberty-minded. Never until this Feral beast we live under is GONE.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. KenH says:
    @Randal
    The boy done good, for sure.

    Last week, Rand said, “I don’t think that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes that these authorizations from 16 years ago and 14 years ago … authorized war in seven different countries.”
     
    True words. But it is normal for people to disregard truth when it suits them.

    In just the same way, nobody with an ounce of intellectual honesty could believe that the interstate commerce clause justified drugs prohibition, or that the Fourteenth Amendment justifies all the social liberalism imposed by activist judges in its name.

    When you can't get the votes for something honestly, get something different voted in and just barefacedly lie about what it means. When you have the media and political elites on your side, that's all that is needed.

    Busybody politicians, left wing media pundits and SJW university professors also use article I, section 8, “to provide for the general welfare” clause to justify special rights, privileges and programs bestowed on undeserving minority groups, racial and other, that far exceed the Congress’s authority under the Constitution. Providing for the general welfare is taken wildly out of context since it applies to Congress having the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”

    This doesn’t grant Congress the right to make blacks the master race via civil rights laws, meddle in the private healthcare industry or provide tax credits to purchase a Toyota Prius or smart car. And most of these progressive initiatives expressly violate the equal protection under the law clause of the 14th amendment since it creates special categories of citizens entitled to special protections not afforded the white majority.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. KenH says:

    Kudos to sonny boy Rand for forcing the Senate to have a discussion on violations of the AUMF legislation that limits military action to those that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. Our policy in the Middle East, Afghanistan and North Africa under Obama and now Trump far exceeds that.

    Scope creep is an understatement. It has now morphed into carte blanche for the president to do as he pleases regarding foreign policy and at the urging of powerful special interests and should be renamed “The regime change against anyone who displeases Israel, Nikki Haley or Ivanka Trump act of 2017″.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. @The Alarmist
    "We're not at war with Canada ... wait, are we?"

    Priceless. Good find.

    Yeah, good wholesome show with not too much of an agenda, as I recall. The oldest kid, Alex (Micheal J. Fox) was a conservative, while his parents were NPR-type lefties. It was especially funny when Alex would teach Reagan-era conservative/libertarian values to his 5-y/o young brother. Peak Stupidity on non-libertarian values at the public library with nod to the Keaton family.

    “Good find”. It’s all up in here, Alarmist. Haha. I’m glad you enjoyed the clip.

    Back to Rand Paul and this bill. If we had the old-time Democrats who in the Cold War times wanted the US to unilaterally disarm (bad idea) and to quit being the policeman of the world (good idea) around now, there’d be loads of D votes for the bill. Right now, no, it will not be allowed to pass. Just like the Feral Gov’t healthcare votes back in ’09, they will pretend there is a big fight for your wishes, but you will never get your way, if you are liberty-minded. Never until this Feral beast we live under is GONE.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Interesting thing about Family Ties and other shows of the era was the way they at least tolerated the conservative views, or at least didn't portray Alex as the Devil incarnate. Even the NPR-type liberal parents weren't insufferable.

    Even many of the Dems of Reagan's days would have gone along with it, because Reagan would have sold it directly to the people, and the legislators back then actually listened to the vox populii. Now legislators of both parties cater almost exclusively to the donor class. The only recent thing I can recall where the will of the people was heeded is when talk-radio caused the Congressional switchboard to melt-down over Comprehensive Immigration Reform. TPTB barely avoided a repeat over Obamacare by keeping the details secret and by enforcing strict party discipline. Republicans stayed onside I would imagine since they were assured to lose and hanging "tough" would keep the small donors on board ... but small donors don't really matter any more.

    If his strings weren't being pulled by The Generals on National Security matters and by Ivanka on domestic matters, a President Trump who went on TV to tell the people to figuratively burn down the Capitol switch might actually get the things he promised done. His tweets are all editorial and insult, and no call to specific action.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, good wholesome show with not too much of an agenda, as I recall. The oldest kid, Alex (Micheal J. Fox) was a conservative, while his parents were NPR-type lefties. It was especially funny when Alex would teach Reagan-era conservative/libertarian values to his 5-y/o young brother. Peak Stupidity on non-libertarian values at the public library with nod to the Keaton family.

    "Good find". It's all up in here, Alarmist. Haha. I'm glad you enjoyed the clip.

    Back to Rand Paul and this bill. If we had the old-time Democrats who in the Cold War times wanted the US to unilaterally disarm (bad idea) and to quit being the policeman of the world (good idea) around now, there'd be loads of D votes for the bill. Right now, no, it will not be allowed to pass. Just like the Feral Gov't healthcare votes back in '09, they will pretend there is a big fight for your wishes, but you will never get your way, if you are liberty-minded. Never until this Feral beast we live under is GONE.

    Interesting thing about Family Ties and other shows of the era was the way they at least tolerated the conservative views, or at least didn’t portray Alex as the Devil incarnate. Even the NPR-type liberal parents weren’t insufferable.

    Even many of the Dems of Reagan’s days would have gone along with it, because Reagan would have sold it directly to the people, and the legislators back then actually listened to the vox populii. Now legislators of both parties cater almost exclusively to the donor class. The only recent thing I can recall where the will of the people was heeded is when talk-radio caused the Congressional switchboard to melt-down over Comprehensive Immigration Reform. TPTB barely avoided a repeat over Obamacare by keeping the details secret and by enforcing strict party discipline. Republicans stayed onside I would imagine since they were assured to lose and hanging “tough” would keep the small donors on board … but small donors don’t really matter any more.

    If his strings weren’t being pulled by The Generals on National Security matters and by Ivanka on domestic matters, a President Trump who went on TV to tell the people to figuratively burn down the Capitol switch might actually get the things he promised done. His tweets are all editorial and insult, and no call to specific action.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree completely with all you wrote, Alarmist. I will add this that I've been thinking about, only just in the last 5-10 years or so (I've read a lot of ZeroHedge, and that will make you cynical in a hurry):

    Anyway, I think the big pieces of crap legislation that the House and Senate vote on are mostly already decided on well before the vote. The big donors are who runs the show, as you say, and they'll get their way.

    There may be senators or reps from conservative states or districts who tell the others "Hey, I will lose my next election if I vote NO (or YES) on this, I'm warning you - then I wouldn't be able to work for y'all (the donors) anymore." Then, behind the scenes, the numbers are worked out between the Red and Blue wings of The Party by the Inner Party and certain senators/reps are told "OK, you can vote NO (or YES) to keep your seat, we've got enough YES's (or NO's) to cover you. Thanks for checking in with us, and speaking of checks, yeah, it'll be at your house absolutely positively overnight."

    If our founders woke up now, they would be immediately forming militias and reading up on new weaponry, drones, and unix hacking, with Ben Franklin leading the way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @The Alarmist
    Interesting thing about Family Ties and other shows of the era was the way they at least tolerated the conservative views, or at least didn't portray Alex as the Devil incarnate. Even the NPR-type liberal parents weren't insufferable.

    Even many of the Dems of Reagan's days would have gone along with it, because Reagan would have sold it directly to the people, and the legislators back then actually listened to the vox populii. Now legislators of both parties cater almost exclusively to the donor class. The only recent thing I can recall where the will of the people was heeded is when talk-radio caused the Congressional switchboard to melt-down over Comprehensive Immigration Reform. TPTB barely avoided a repeat over Obamacare by keeping the details secret and by enforcing strict party discipline. Republicans stayed onside I would imagine since they were assured to lose and hanging "tough" would keep the small donors on board ... but small donors don't really matter any more.

    If his strings weren't being pulled by The Generals on National Security matters and by Ivanka on domestic matters, a President Trump who went on TV to tell the people to figuratively burn down the Capitol switch might actually get the things he promised done. His tweets are all editorial and insult, and no call to specific action.

    I agree completely with all you wrote, Alarmist. I will add this that I’ve been thinking about, only just in the last 5-10 years or so (I’ve read a lot of ZeroHedge, and that will make you cynical in a hurry):

    Anyway, I think the big pieces of crap legislation that the House and Senate vote on are mostly already decided on well before the vote. The big donors are who runs the show, as you say, and they’ll get their way.

    There may be senators or reps from conservative states or districts who tell the others “Hey, I will lose my next election if I vote NO (or YES) on this, I’m warning you – then I wouldn’t be able to work for y’all (the donors) anymore.” Then, behind the scenes, the numbers are worked out between the Red and Blue wings of The Party by the Inner Party and certain senators/reps are told “OK, you can vote NO (or YES) to keep your seat, we’ve got enough YES’s (or NO’s) to cover you. Thanks for checking in with us, and speaking of checks, yeah, it’ll be at your house absolutely positively overnight.”

    If our founders woke up now, they would be immediately forming militias and reading up on new weaponry, drones, and unix hacking, with Ben Franklin leading the way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Thank you, Dr. Paul & Rand Paul.

    John Doran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS