Wrong Paul Says Obama is a Dictator

[Tyrannical]

Ron Paul believes that executive orders are an abuse of executive power and that only Congress has the authority to create laws. The President also should not conduct wars without a Congressional declaration of war.

Bush did.

And Ron Paul says it was wrong too. Both parties are guilty of that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ron Paul believes that executive orders are an abuse of executive power and that only Congress has the authority to create laws. The President also should not conduct wars without a Congressional declaration of war.

Bush did.

And Ron Paul says it was wrong too. Both parties are guilty of that.

But the fact of the matter is there is a precedent, and the Republicans set it. And, of course, Obama is not a dictator, this is simply campaign rhetoric and should be judged by that (extremely low) standard.

[Schneibster]

Ron Paul believes that executive orders are an abuse of executive power and that only Congress has the authority to create laws. The President also should not conduct wars without a Congressional declaration of war.

Bush did.

And Ron Paul says it was wrong too. Both parties are guilty of that.

And as usual, Wrong Paul is wrong.

Reality. The Democrats were idiots to go along with it, but they did and there it is.

ETA: And don't bother, there's another one for Afghanistan.

[Tyrannical]

Ron Paul believes that executive orders are an abuse of executive power and that only Congress has the authority to create laws. The President also should not conduct wars without a Congressional declaration of war.

Bush did.

And Ron Paul says it was wrong too. Both parties are guilty of that.

But the fact of the matter is there is a precedent, and the Republicans set it. And, of course, Obama is not a dictator, this is simply campaign rhetoric and should be judged by that (extremely low) standard.

No, the Democrats set the War without declaration principle. Harry Truman and the undeclared Koran war for example. Followed by another Democrat misadventure, the Vietnam war.

[Schneibster]

Ron Paul believes that executive orders are an abuse of executive power and that only Congress has the authority to create laws. The President also should not conduct wars without a Congressional declaration of war.

Bush did.

And Ron Paul says it was wrong too. Both parties are guilty of that.

But the fact of the matter is there is a precedent, and the Republicans set it. And, of course, Obama is not a dictator, this is simply campaign rhetoric and should be judged by that (extremely low) standard.

No, the Democrats set the War without declaration principle. Harry Truman and the undeclared Koran war for example. Followed by another Democrat misadventure, the Vietnam war.

The Korean War was declared by the UN. UNSCR 82, as a matter of fact.

On Earth.

[Tyrannical]

The Korean War was declared by the UN. UNSCR 82, as a matter of fact.

On Earth.

Odd, I thought only Congress had that right given to them by the Constitution

Under Ron Paul, no more UN or NATO declared wars. Congress better be willing to officially declare war if they expect Ron Paul to send the troops over.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ron Paul believes that executive orders are an abuse of executive power and that only Congress has the authority to create laws. The President also should not conduct wars without a Congressional declaration of war.

Bush did.

And Ron Paul says it was wrong too. Both parties are guilty of that.

But the fact of the matter is there is a precedent, and the Republicans set it. And, of course, Obama is not a dictator, this is simply campaign rhetoric and should be judged by that (extremely low) standard.

No, the Democrats set the War without declaration principle. Harry Truman and the undeclared Koran war for example. Followed by another Democrat misadventure, the Vietnam war.

Good point, well made, and the precedent is clear, the President can make war.

[Drewish]

Don't agree with Ron Paul's statement here but precedent is a horrible justification for anything. It's like appealing to tradition. When deciding what we think is right and wrong we should not be constrained by religious tradition or legal precedent. I say this as the son with a pastor for a father and a lawyer for a mother. Two of the most ridiculous approaches to determining what is right, that I've ever heard. The reason I think this is hyperbole is not because I agree that the President should be able to declare war without congress, but because such things occurred long before Obama, so it is not his to take the blame for them. If however, we accept all previously outrageous violations of our rights as "the norm" after a short span of time, then dictatorship really is inevitable.

[Svartalf]

While precedent is no moral justification, in your system, it is quite a justification regarding whether a given piece of conduct or policy is legal or not.

Precedent don't telly you whether it is right, or a good idea to engage in war, but it does tell that the prez can legally do it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

While precedent is no moral justification, in your system, it is quite a justification regarding whether a given piece of conduct or policy is legal or not.

Precedent don't telly you whether it is right, or a good idea to engage in war, but it does tell that the prez can legally do it.

Yeppers. FDR was "short of war" for months before Pearl Harbor. Lincoln waged war without a declaration. And Cain's claim lacks substance. Nothing surprising there.

[Tyrannical]

Well, I think there would be a lot less unwise foreign military expeditions if it required a formal declaration of war.

[Schneibster]

The Korean War was declared by the UN. UNSCR 82, as a matter of fact.

On Earth.

Odd, I thought only Congress had that right given to them by the Constitution

Declaring war is a different thing than participating in a UN action, from the US' point of view. Though it isn't from the UN's.

Nice try obfuscating the two.

You are transparent as glass.

[Schneibster]

Well, I think there would be a lot less unwise foreign military expeditions if it required a formal declaration of war.

Unfortunately, there also would be a lot less wise ones.

[Schneibster]

While precedent is no moral justification, in your system, it is quite a justification regarding whether a given piece of conduct or policy is legal or not.

Precedent don't telly you whether it is right, or a good idea to engage in war, but it does tell that the prez can legally do it.

And somebody brought up the point about whether it's legal or not.

Gee, that was Wrong Paul, wasn't it?

Oops.