Ron Paul on The Unconstitutional War Powers Act and an Agitated James Baker

[ADoseofReality1]

@KamikazeJonez you are missing huge part of this. At least get all the facts before making the accusation that Paul doesn't believe what he's saying.

[KamikazeJonez]

Unfortunately for Paul's supporters, he doesn't believe in this rhetoric. He voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists Act in 2002. This act granted President Bush WAR POWERS against terrorists. Mind you, Congress has never declared war against "terrorism," so Paul obviously doesn't believe what he's spouting in this video.

[Lorrybuehler]

@KamikazeJonez Ron Paul is asserting that Presidents abuse their power. For example, the most recent example: President Obama used the military to invade Libya. Ron Paul is arguing that the intention of the War Powers Resolution was to RESTRAIN Presidential power not GIVE them power. So in essence he is reasserting the power to take military action should lay in the CONGRESS, as mandated in the Constitution, NOT in the President.

[Lorrybuehler]

@KamikazeJonez The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists RESOLUTION was signed Sept 18 2001. IT DID give the President power to act against the terrorists that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. The point is that the Congress directs the military action not some cowboy in the White House. Duh! When he says Congress should declare war, yeah he means that they should repeal the War Power Resolution because Presidents are completely reversing the original intention of the law.

[Dr1Canuckchuck]

If this man ever does run for president he's going to have to dodge CIA bullets all the way to the white house. They definitely don't want someone constitutionally minded in office, that would destroy all their murderous plans for the world. They have too many countries left to invade and too many innocent people left to murder.

[ch09h]

What Mr. Baker meant to say was "Yes you are right" but what he actually said was "I'm a fucking idiot".

[casperorchids]

and that might not even be enough, they are so sold out

[njhth]

The sad part is, Odumba is taking advantage of this right now. People better wake up and listen to Ron Paul more often!

[casperorchids]

@njhth A lot of people better wake up, he has to win Presidency so as to make sure the balance is restored and not vetoed like all the others would do. Congress won't even bring the matter up anymore, at least not without a strong leader pushing hard for huge reform

[WillyMcCoy50]

You're five minutes are up and I apologize for congress for being such pussies

[kelborn24]

SCREW BAKER! UP YOURS!

[Nibielari]

ok under constitution we can not go to war without congress delcaring it. the president acts as commander in chief of course. the only thing the president should be able to do under the constitution is act when we are under attack. btw a terrorist attack isnt an act of war if it was why didnt we go to war during ok city bombing.

[kelborn24]

Yes...A terrorist attack isn't an act of war against us, a group of terrorists is not a nation. If for some reason Spain or France declared war/attacked (on) us, then the president can act, but otherwise, he has no power. The office of president really shouldn't be "that" significant.

[unityrover]

None of these assholes care about the constitution. FACK.

[esoterik1967]

fuck you Baker. You smug narcissistic prick.

[thomasw78]

The problem is nothing in the Constitution says the president cant use the military in any capacity unless Congress declares war. If there was he would be subject to impeachment. But since there's not then the president can make a reasonable claim to use the military since he is the commander in chief. Certainly he has no power to declare war but not all military operations require a declaration of war. For example we had our sights on bin laden and wanted to take him out?

[BiffMP5]

For those instances in which a declaration of war is inappropriate, a letter of marque and reprisal must be granted by Congress. This authorizes military operations against non-eminent threats, such as bin Laden's group.

[boots920]

Not a bad strategy but if you keep your capital in cash its going to become worthless. Old strategies don't work in bizarro world. I can't believe how hooped we are.

[Ishpeck]

This "knocking of heads" he mentions is called "checks and balances." Liberty's a bitch, Jim. Deal with it.

[mustangjake2073]

If the people's President Ron Paul declares war on congress to drag these mofos out, I'm driving to washington tomorrow.

[scientistwriter]

done deal

[ParapaDrifter]

we have no representative wars anymore. Baker, look me straight in the face and tell me the Iraq war was for my benefit and I'll break your fucking nose!

[Lucky7wins]

F*ck Mr. Baker

[OgeronimonominoregO]

Yeah, Baker points out that the veto is in the Constitution but neglects the whole point that the power to declare war is vested in Congress, not the President, in that same Constitution.

Unfortunately, this is the way power works. They will interpret things however they wish to. Presidents can always claim imminent danger, war on terror, "actionable intelligence" regarding some secret plot of bad people in foreign countries to "endanger vital American interests" or whatever.

[Justbeatit999]

I LOVE PETER SCHIFF, JIM ROGERS, RON PAUL and MARC FABER! I just always go to financialtruth0.blogspot . com because they post there all the LATEST VIDEOS!!!

[Lyndehouse]

Baker get raped by the Eagle Ron Paul--just like everyone who argues with him

[Serge808]

that baker is talking out of his ass, he needs to wipe that smirk off his face.i find it hard to believe that the constitution gives the president the right to unilaterally proclaim war.he might be able to veto bills passed to him but he doesnt have the right as far as i can contemplate it.

[eurohim]

To declare was is a right of the congress. It says it in plain english in Section 8"Powers of Congress.