Congress, Constitutional Law, Media, Politics

Rand Paul Calls For Congress To Demand War Powers Authorization . . . John McCain Says Paul Is “Wrong” and Alone In The Senate

I have been discussing how the Congress is again willfully ignoring its constitutional duty on the declaration of war as our intervention in Syria expands.  Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have fallen over each other to praise the attacks even though Congress never authorized the action.  Hillary Clinton was calling for attacks in Syria just hours before the attack, as she did in Iraq, Libya and other past conflicts.  The United States just attacked a foreign nation that had not attacked the United States.  It was done with little consultation and no authorization from Congress.  However, as with prior wars, the attacks remain politically popular so Congress is silent with the exception of a few members like Sen. Rand Paul.  Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) however has gone further to denounce Paul as simply “wrong” and virtually mock him as a nonentity in calling for such congressional authority.  He is alone in the Senate, McCain insisted, in his demand that Congress fulfill its Article I duties. It is a sad moment for those who believe in a textualist or formalist approach to constitutional powers.  All of those textualists who proudly embraced Neil Gorsuch are now apparently living constitutionalists as the subject turns to yet another war.

James Madison once said “the executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war: hence it is the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence.” As shown by the Syrian strikes (and passivity of Congress) wars are popular and can bring accolades to “strong leaders.”  However, our politicians have shown that it is not simply the executive branch that is “most distinguished by its propensity to war” but also the legislative branch.  Politicians however want to enjoy the popularity of wars without shouldering the responsibility should the war go badly. Thus, few of our hundreds of military interventions have been the result of declarations or even specific authorizations.

 McCain, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, refused to even respond to Paul’s principled demand for congressional authorization by saying “I don’t really react to Sen. Paul.”  He added that Paul “doesn’t have any real influence in the United States Senate . . . I don’t pay any attention frankly to what Sen. Paul says.”

The same might be said about what Article I says.

245 thoughts on “Rand Paul Calls For Congress To Demand War Powers Authorization . . . John McCain Says Paul Is “Wrong” and Alone In The Senate”

  1. McCain is wrong and Rand is right looking at the future IF IF IF they have a well thougt out War Powers Act which allows sufficient latitude for immediate response when needed and is foillowed by the approval of Congress with teeth in it.

    Meaning a time limit on Congress to give an answer as well as a time limit on the President to present the situation to Congress. 30 plus 60 plus 90 to reinforce or withdraw seem about right. A yardstick is if ships are needed to move heavy lift units – or not. That means unless the large transport planes are used the 101st and 82nd would not go fully equipped with artillery and helicopters on which both now rely. unless they used the US Navy’s Bob Hope Class roll on roll off fleet. assuming they still work.

    Teeth means neither party can ignore the War Powers Act as in the past even if in the Act it states automaric impeachment proceedings followed by trial. That for the benefit of the left.

    The act should not apply to missions ordered within the borders of the country. …or should it?

    The Syrian attack was a demonstration and meant as such. The ability to detect and delivery steel on target as the artillery says using a variety of ways. What they didn’t demonstrate was the use of stand off detection from satellites, aircraft, drones etc. One new area is facial recognition . Think of this last one as a straighten up and fly right last chance eviction notice and most importantly the ability and the will to act.

    Something like a reverse twin towers situation. You will recall afterwards the anthrax from crop duster scare which came to not much BUT they had demonstrated ability and will. Bush’s Response was similar. One building one country..

    But the the procedure as a law not the product of years of ignoring the law as a way of having assent really needs a work over. ….. President seems very good at digging out these problems that have been swept under the rug by the none absent autocracy coupled with the willingness of Congress to slough off it’s resonsibilities in law makers to this Fourth Branch whatever you call it. If you want that sort of technical assisance fine but put it in and under the control of your branch and take responsibility Same with the proliferation of different kinds of unsupervised courts. .

    Thus i agree with Zack’s comments and the rest is the usual defeatest immaterial BS from those who caused much of the problems.

    And that’s the view from the Constitutional center of this Representative Constitutional Republic.

  2. Rand is absolutely right. Can we please send McCain back to the Hanoi Hilton? I sincerely believe that Trump’s Syria play was more about other political goals – both domestic and foreign, than his stated purpose.

    1. The Courageous Legacy of Journalist Helen Thomas: ‘Zionists go home!’
      BY DR. KEVIN BARRETT

      Winston-Salem, NC: WXII-TV is an Accomplice to the Zionist Controlled Hearst Corporation War Crimes.
      WXII-TV & NBC are complicit in the Cover-up & Propaganda in the murders of the illegal U.S. / Israeli Wars & 9/11. They do not deserve to be called journalists. They are War Criminals.

      http://BuenaVistaMall.com/HearstCorp.html

  4. Just as a reminder: our government is supposed to be limited by the constitution ALWAYS, not just when you don’t agree with what they are doing.

  6. I’m actually in the process of reading our current National Security Advisor’s (Gen. McMaster’s) book on the travesty of Vietnam, Dereliction of Duty. I hope that his voice is being heard in the Trump administration. It’s clear that McMasters sees the stupidity and inhumanity of politicians when they use their fighting countrymen as their personal public relations organs: sending them into harms way not to accomplish any real objective, but simply to create a narrative to enhance political image.

  7. As important as the constitutional issue, there remains the important issue of the strategy. What do we intend to accomplish? What are the likely responses to our actions? What are the chances of success?

    Simply being a bad actor, as Assad is, does not demonstrate the necessity to go to war. If we started blowing up all the bad actors in the world there would not be much left.

    Do we intend to stop the war crimes Syria? Do we intend to remove Assad? What are our goals. Are we really ready to bear the burden and pay the price?

    Without some understanding of what we wish to accomplish and a coherent plan to get there, Trump’s strike on Syria was nothing more that political sound and furry.

    1. Yep. With consequences. You don’t unleash that kind of force without consequences. Lots of hidden costs. Cut government salaries by half. End their health insurance. They’re good with spending money, let them pay for it.

    2. Hmmm. As previously stated, I am a dyed-in-the-wool military daughter. So I am all-in on the necessity of constraining politicians from using troops solely to advance their political careers. However, I do think that, as the reigning super-power on the planet, we may have the luxury/responsibility of slapping evil global mosquitos on occasion. And,in this case, I’m pretty sure there was minimal risk to sending this clear message to Assad: “The U.S. will not countenance your use of chemical weapons.” Honestly, what is Assad going to do? He could try to get Putin to act on his behalf, but – given that Russia has an economy slightly smaller than Italy’s – I don’t think he’ll be picking a fight with us real soon. (The last arms race didn’t end so well for them). Just sayin.

      1. What if Assad does not back down? What if Russia decides to defend Assad against the air attacks. What if Russia decides to take the battle to the source of the air attacks in our off shore fleet. Are you ready to take serious losses to our vulnerable surface fleet? What if Russia convinces their ally Iran to work their magic and send some special emissaries in our direction?

        Are you really ready to take the battle to the Russian mainland? Regardless of the size of their economy, Russia can throw more megatons in our direction than we can through in their direction – not that it matters since it probably takes only a 1/100 of the thousands of nuclear weapons to destroy either country.

        Just asking, are you really ready to bear any burden and pay any price? Or do you really believe that we can attack sovereign states without any consequences?

        1. Would you rather sit in the corner and wring your hands? Sorry, I believe bullies are best handled by dealing with them, not bowing, kissing their feet and pretending they don’t exist.

      2. A final conclusion, you strategy seems to come down to ‘what me worry? Assad and his allies will not respond. I promise!’

      3. Well Debbie,

        Then I hope you won’t mind it when other nations come over here to bomb us because they think the world’s super-killer power shouldn’t be loose on the streets. Because that is your argument. It can be other’s argument as well. We’ve certainly done some real damage to many nations. Blowback….

      4. When you found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that over a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis died as a result, did you at least say, “Opps.”?

        Our military used to be better than that, even the brats.

    3. I missed the finding that proved Syria used the gas which you seemed to state as fact. Could you please point me to the news article where proof was given?

      1. “I missed the finding that proved Syria used the gas which you seemed to state as fact. Could you please point me to the news article where proof was given?”

        Whether Assad did or did not use gas is not relevant to my discussion. The US has made that determination.

        My remarks were a criticism of the rush to bomb and the possible results from that bombing.

        The fact that the US bombed in not in dispute.

        It seems clear to me that the US has initiated military action without a coherent strategy. Whether you think Assad used gas or not, whether you think military action is justified or not, it seems to me that a coherent strategy is absolutely essential.

        History demonstrates that the ‘what me worry’ strategy, a few bombs will take care of this, is a prescription for disaster.

    1. Of course it is? Why did it take so long for people to realize this? The painless collection of income tax allows people to be immediately for these actions. Everyone should get paid their full amount, and pay a tax bill every quarter. Believe me, there would be a lot more questions about where all this money goes! Don’t think those sky torpedoes are cheap! Raytheon is loving it though–bonuses for everyone!!

      $20 trillion in the hole? Then government needs to raise taxes to pay for these “extra constitutional war.” I’m personally sick of sending in tons of money for buying stuff to kill people at the stroke of a pen. There are lots of humanitarian issues in the world right now. This is the hot one with political implications and control at stake. It’s the last ditch effort by the neocons to leverage back into a conflict that was just about over.

      Paul is right, Congress needs to do their job, instead of just stroking each other’s… well… backs…

    2. Trump may end up being the biggest example of “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory” in history. We know this has no positive outcome.

      3. I disagree. Obama showed the world that peace through “limp wristed” weakness gets other countries laughing while building islands of military purposes, building nuclear weapons while signing agreements not to do such, turning democratic NATO allies into dictatorships governed by maniacs and the like. The US looked like an embarrassment, it looked like the EU, for crying out loud. Every corner of the world runs amok. It’s time for some STRENGTH.

  9. This is the same as Iraq. One could argue that the action was legitimate as the procedures were followed, unfortunately based on faulty intelligence. However, the action was miserably executed. Firstly surgical strikes and encouragement of a coup would have been a viable and much more intelligent way to get rid of Saddam. Secondly, the US and GB sat on their thumbs for eight months while the situation turned into the chaos which produced today’s problems. Thirdly, idiots emanating from Washington and the three stooges dismantled the security infrastructure that was in place and left a void, into which thousands of Americans, British, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis lost their lives. Brilliant. The i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed but the action was mishandled by an inept and power mongering White House. With Syria, Obama followed the rules and went to Congress and at a time, before the Russians had become so entrenched and Assad was on the ropes, for power mongering reasons Congress opposed any surgical actions. Obama went on to deal with the area outside of protocol and was and continues to be soundly criticized in the most disgusting hypocritical manner by the Republicans. Here, hypocrites such as Rubio, Ryan, McConnell, and other Republicans who opposed attacks with much better arguments under Obama, hypocrites that they have proven themselves to be, now support their mutt.

    What it will come down to is that no one will ever know if this was a good or bad move, unless it is followed up and leads to a decisive finish. It will be absorbed into the quagmire that is the Middle East. Trump let one ball drop; let’s see if he has a second. Trump did this primarily to show that he is tough and to posture. What difference does it make if a child is gassed or blown to pieces by a barrel bomb? The gas attack is a poster child of atrocity but is next to nothing compared to the 400,000 who have already perished. Where were the Republicans, Rubio, etc. at Aleppo? If he had two balls he would have used 300 missiles and taken out as much of Assad’s air force as possible, along with artillery and helicopters. This is a slap on the wrist that will be responded to by Russia supplying Assad with more jets and other weapons. The hypocrisy of the right is so thick you could cut it with a butter knife. Obama follows the Constitution and he is weak. Obama gets tough and acts independently of Congress-just like DDT- and he is a traitor to the Constitution. The Republicans and their mutts, including this poodle in the White House: are treasonous, hypocrites, ignore the Constitution, fall short, fall on their lying faces, etc and they are applauded. In this dysfunctional country as far as leadership goes, it is all about the lesser of evils; there are next to no worthy representatives; it is an oligarchy that runs things through money, and it is graphically apparent that we are under the boot of the far worse and more serious evil. Clinton looks less evil as every moment passes. She is still a weasel and most of how her haters peg her, but, she is Joan of Arc compared to this buffoon.

    1. Whoa! Take a breath, Isaacbasonkavich! This is not “the same as Iraq” Not yet, at least. One U.S. President (Obama) warned Assad not to use chemical weapons. Another U.S. President has shown Assad that there will be consequences to the use of chemical weapons. If our message finally registers and Assad stops using them, we’ve achieved our (dems & reps) goal. If he does it again, we’ll have to use harsher measures. As long as no boots on the ground are needed, I think SOMEONE needs to communicate to the psychopaths in power in various regions of the world that there is a grown-up on the playground!

      1. Debbie,

        In 2013 it was “discovered” finally, after an actual investigation, that Assad wasn’t the one using the chemical weapons.

        If you had an investigation now, I doubt we’d find Assad using them this time either. However, there isn’t going to be an investigation because that would not work for Trump’s masters. They can’t make money off truth or even the attempt to find the truth in a court of law. They only make money lying to you and using military weapons.

        Issac,

        Our leaders made up the pretext for Iraq. That’s not conjecturer, it’s been proven.

        1. Well said, Jill.

          It’s amazing how because it’s war, everyone simply assumes chemical weapons and that Assad is directly responsible. Yet five minutes ago, or is it days, (I always get confused when the lynch mob is fingering the rope), the same people were howling that the SAME Main Stream Media does nothing but lie to us about Russia’s relations with Trump and his staff.

          So which way is it? When ever it has to do with WAR, then the MSM is SPOT ON and ONLY tells the truth? Like with those weapons of mass deception used in Iraq? But when ever it has to do with Trump, it’s lies, all lies, all of the time?

          So basically, we have to go on a case by case basis – perhaps several hundred thousand of them – so we can tell when the media is lying, right? Makes perfect sense.

          Now the last thing, the very last thing anyone should want in a case like this is a careful, methodological, inquiry into the facts by an independent body who will publish the results for the world to see and not simply for the politicians to lie about. What fun would that be when we already have the rope out and over the branch and around Assad’s neck?

      2. Debbie-
        On what do you base your assumption that the gas was under Assad’s control? All evidence points to terrorist control of the gas.

      3. Whoa Debbie

        It is the same as pertains to who says they were for and then come out against. When something goes well, everybody takes credit and if the Constitution was not followed, nobody cares. When something goes badly, it’s all the other sides fault and horribly in violation of the Constitution. This Constitution thing is a weapon used for purposes other than for what it was designed.

        What Obama didn’t do militarily, by seeking a diplomatic resolution was far superior statesmanship than anything that has been seen by the buffoon in the White House now. Republican members of Congress first demanded military response and when Obama came into the conversation as being on board with that, they pulled the old Constitution song and dance and opposed the Executive office. This was nothing more than the ‘whatever Obama wants, we want the opposite’ thing. The bringing in of Russia to deal with it was a masterful move. In the end hundreds of thousands have been killed by bombs, not gas. This is a symbolic thing, something to wrap around a ‘balsy’ move.

        In ‘slapping’ Assad, Trump has indeed shown Assad that Trump has at least one spherical orb down there, but it is but a slap. Trump should have either partnered with Russia to stop this or sent in enough missiles to take out as much of Assad’s air force as possible. The situation is timeless, Machiavelli said it centuries ago, ‘Never do your enemy a small injury.’ This all smacks of rounding up illegals, shaking a big stick, etc.

        DDT will have to come up with a lot more than this bravado to offset his disgusting, deplorable self. Who knows it might just be that we are at the bottom and he learns. I’ll go for that. But, this is not up to the level of what it should mean to be an American.

        1. Lincoln was called a “buffoon” too. In his time people called him this, as well as other obnoxious names.

  10. What is the definition of war? We need to define our terms. I’m gusssing that “war” isn’t defined in the constitution which is leading to everyone running around with their own interpretation and everyone talking and we’re getting nowhere.

    1. This operation has been elsewhere described as a “kinetic humanitarian response” rather than an act of war.I believe there is some merit to the distinction.It would also have some justification in terms of customary international law on the basis of R2P-right to protect.

    2. Aside form some elected officials in this country, I doubt any authority has ever claimed that an attack on the territory of a sovereign nation is not an act of war.

      Maybe you have some source outside US administrations or US legislature for the use of terms like incursion instead of acts of war?

      Funny, whether a particular action is an act of war seems to depend greatly on how much damage there is to US personnel and US interests.

      Some how blowing up entire neighborhoods is not an act of war so long as the threat to US interests is minimal – according to elected US officials.

    3. Your right, no definition of war. I propose a simple definition, dropping bombs on a foreign country is an act of war. Didn’t Japan do that in Hawaii a few years ago?

      1. Paul – Japan declared war, it just was not translated into English and delivered until after the bombs had been dropped at Pearl Harbor. However, there are some who think the US decoded the messages before the Japanese did and actually knew about it before the bombs were dropped. Still, the USS Ward, started the whole mess when it fired on and sank and Japanese mini-sub hours before the planes arrived.

        1. However, there are some who think the US decoded the messages before the Japanese did and actually knew about it before the bombs

          Some of the same people cannot figure out who wrote the newsletter copy in an office which employed four people, think the world would benefit from a gold standard, and think the Near East is a mess because ‘we’re over there’.

          1. “Some of the same people cannot figure out who wrote the newsletter copy in an office which employed four people, think the world would benefit from a gold standard, and think the Near East is a mess because ‘we’re over there’.”

            The same people responsible for decrypting the Japanese attack message also wrote a news release and took strong political positions involving the gold standard and our presence in the Near East?

            Who are these people? If they though our presence in the Near East caused problems, what policies did they advocate for the Near East?

            1. Do I have to spell everything out for you? That trio of inanities has been promoted by Ron Paul.

              1. “Do I have to spell everything out for you? ”

                If you expect to be taken seriously it is in your interest to be clear about your references and not make people guess about what you are trying to say.

                Try clarity for a change. You will see remarkable results.

  11. No matter their party any member of Congress that sits and watches the President engage in military strikes like the one Trump committed in Syria has violated their oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. John McCain as usual just loves a war! Why dies John McCain hate America?

    Democrats who praise this strike should be ashamed of themselves. They praised the attack on Iraq also when the claim of WMD was made. Apparently there is no war some people don’t just love. I’m sick of it. We can afford war but we can’t afford health care, clean water or air, safe streets or bridges.

    This distraction serves only one man’s purpose but many profit. Another sad day for the Constitution and our democracy.

    1. Some people think that killing people in the countries where they live and stealing their resources and land rights, is the only thing our taxes should be used for. Others of us want none of our taxes used for that. We should at least be able to make that choice, seeing that so many people fail to understand the immorality of murder.

      1. Some people think that killing people in the countries where they live and stealing their resources and land rights, is the only thing our taxes should be used for.

        And some people set up strawmen under the illusion that they’re engaged in something non-silly when they knock them down.

  12. I would be interested in hearing the wisdom of the only person that ever solved the chemical attack atrocity without using the military – President Barack Obama = end of story!

    1. “wisdom”? “solved”? These civilians weren’t hit by pepper spray. Your so called wise solution APPARENTLY was neither wise or solved anything; unless of course you were conspiring with the Russians to cement them into the eastern Med.

  13. Reblogged this on Welcome to My Corner Here on Word Press and commented:
    Someone once said that when others are eloquent, let the words speak for itself–Professor Turley, yet again, has spoken for many in underscoring the profound erosion in constitutional govt. on-going. I salute him and thank him for this stance…..

  14. “39 white men of similar interests and backgrounds” Res ipsa loquitur. Ignoring that and moving on.

    Of all the Presidents you wouldn’t want to able to act on a whim and launch a military assault. I would think this would be the one. You can agree with the action but still insist on a process.

  15. These wars aren’t all that popular with our populace. However they are very popuprofitlar for the congress and president’s owners. Profit before honor. Cruelty before justice. Why don’t they just make a new US seal for their hallways with these motto?

    These are truly evil people. The horse came and went in the Senate. Now it’s most jackasses everywhere you look. Yes it is sad. Our nation will fall because these people honor nothing, not our Constitution, not life, not justice, not doing what is good for our nation. What empty people they are. I suppose that is why life in general and justice is a blank to them. They are the zombie leaders put in place by those with even less honor than themselves.

    Rand Paul is wrong about many things. This isn’t one of them.

    2. Missiles are fired and bombs are dropped because it provides a perverted gratification to those doing the bombing – directly and vicariously. For everyone else, it’s a heinous war crime.

      1. What’s pathetic is that you fancy you’re clever.

  16. What was the size of the Congress at the time that the Constitution was adopted? I believe it was 39 white men of similar interests and backgrounds who could sit down, engage in a discussion, then and come to an agreement. Today, we have a largely dysfunctional Congress that, if left to decide on a meal, would starve to death before reaching an agreement. Yes, Congress should be involved in deciding on a long-term military engagement such as the Vietnam conflict, but where we have an emergency, such as nerve gas being dropped on children in Syria, we need a person who can take decisive action to end the horror. Fortunately we now have such a person in the White House.

    1. TIN,

      First, this wasn’t an emergency. Secondly, the US creates actual emergencies for other people around the world all the time. Our allies do so as well. People actually don’t want the US bombing them and starving them and destroying their nations. They even protest us, not that we’ll hear about it on our “newz”.

      Now let’s grant your idea this was an emergency. Then why is the answer 94 million bucks of missiles? We have an ICC. There could have been fact finding, a trial and a verdict. The reason we don’t get trials is because the 94 million went to weapons manufacturers. It was a profitable venture. Unfortunately, we indeed do have one more such person in the WH, one who loves to create profits for his masters. Mission Accomplished. Now on to Korea, not declaration needed!

    2. Why is “nerve gas (source unknown) being dropped on children in Syria” worse than children being slaughtered by Israeli missiles in Palestine or Saudi/US weapons in Yemen, or Mexican students being massacred? Oh yeah…that’s right….something about oil and gas pipelines from SA and Qatar through Syria to serve Europe, which would devastate the Russian economy. It’s not about the kids.

      1. Doglover,
        You seem to have a very selective outrage for crimes against humanity. How dedicated are you to defending against the slaughter of innocent human life throughout the world? Are you an absolutist when it comes to the right to life, or are you a relativist? I ask this specifically to address the hypocrisy that abounds in these discussions. Place whatever blame you want, if you or anyone that does so accepts a relativist doctrine on the right to life then how exactly do you have standing to oppose another’s relativist approach?

        1. He’s an adolescent. You’re assuming he’s thought something through.

    1. You can agree with the attack and still insist on a formal process. There simply isn’t a case for America to have been at dire risk. If simply imagining a possible scenario is sufficient. We should wipe out North Korea, Russia and Iran because of what they might be thinking.

      1. enigma – genocide is a real problem. Had we stepped in earlier there would be a lot more leftist Jews to vote Democratic.

        1. Really? Is there a contest I’m unaware of to see just how offensive people can be? There actually is a process other than Trump’s or any other President’s whim.

          1. enigma – the current theory is that if you do not call it a war you do not have to get permission from Congress. A textual sort of thing.

            1. Funny, I though demos and the left were the only ones that though changing the terms can change reality.

              Silly me.

              1. bfm – it has to do with a ‘strict’ reading of the Constitution. Not all military actions are a war, i.e., Korea.

                1. ” Not all military actions are a war, i.e., Korea.”

                  Seems to me that the only ones who claim that Korea was not a war are elected US officials and some who have confidence in their rationalizations.

                  I believe in international law there are some definitions of a just or legal war including coming to the defense of a nation under attack. It seems to me that the so called ‘police action’ in Korea was about as good an example of that kind of legal war as there could be

                  The fact that our politicians found it politically expedient to use euphemisms to avoid calling it a war does not make it not a war.

                2. Yes, it was a “police action” — but we still call it the “Korean War”. Vietnam was a “police action,” too, but again we called it a “war.” In Korea, the US acted pursuant to UN Security Council resolutions authorizing the use of force to resist an invasion; Congress appropriated funds to fight the Korean War. In Vietnam, Johnson had the congressional Tonkin Gulf Resolution to support his actions (even though it turned out to be based on “fake news”). Trump has no congressional authorization for his actions in Syria.

                  Certainly “police actions” do have a history in this country’s military activities, going back, at least, to the Banana Republic actions of the early 20th century, and the highly unsuccessful Mexican intervention. That being said, I still can’t find the concept or the words “police action” anywhere in the constitution.

    2. Trump is keeping his campaign promise .He said he would “bomb the shit out of them” and he is. Seems like no one listened .

        1. .Were not you one of those that believed that Trump was some kind of peacenik or something? lol

          1. Yea, I will admit, I thought he was going to fight The Machine. The Military Industrial Complex.
            I knew Hillary was in bed with them…… I was hoping……

        1. Doglover – he did not bomb the Syrian people or the government, he bombed an airfield.

  19. Charlie Savage has an analysis piece in today’s NYT about the legal/constitutional justification (or lack thereof) for the Syrian bombing.

    2. I agree that this is a great post. I also agree with McCain in that Rand is not a very effective voice. I also think Kentucky would be better served with a different type of politician.

    3. Agreed, excellent post, especially these notions of ‘pop war’ and of the textualist morphing into the living, breathing constitutionalist when it suits.

      Principle and character unravel when the end justifies the means.

      To reign in these perpetual Sunday joyrides with the military, I think we, the American citizenry, need an in-depth and honest discussion of just why wars are so popular here.

Comments are closed.