oki, i have a question concerning Mr. Paul

Sludge Factory

Skitch Patterson wrote:

a thought i had about ron paul.
He has railed against the president essentially violating the constitution by sending troops without a decleration of war/congressional approval for a decleration....

as president, wouldnt he need congressional support and approval to remove all the troops FROM Iraq? Assuming he didnt get the approval to do so, wouldnt he be left with 2 options... Going against his campaign promise (and main point of his platform) and Not bringing them back immediately, or just doing it without approval- which would be the same violation that bothered him so much about Bush?

The fact is, even if Paul manages to pull out a victory, he will need to work within the system to bring the troops home, or dismantle the federal reserve- and with more "standard" politicians in the house and senate, there is absolutely no way he will be able to accomplish the things he has promised.

My understanding, and I'm sure someone will be more than kind enough to point out if I'm wrong, is that if the troops are over there unconstitutionally (meaning never receiving a congressional declaration of war) then there is nothing really stopping them from coming home other than the President. The congress never gave their support to begin with. So, in order for there to be a requirement for congressional support to bring the troops home, Congress would first have to support the troops being there with a declaration of war; which, to my knowledge, hasn't happened yet.

As for your other points, he would obviously have to work with the system to dismantle things such as the federal reserve.

DriftingByTheStorm

Well.
I think Sludge made an accurate statement.

Adding to that,
congress has the sole authority to issue a "declaration of war", meaning that it is the sole government entity capable of starting a war ... per the constitution.

What happens when we violate that fundamental tenant of the constitution? (rhetorical)

HOWEVER,
EVEN ASSUMING CONGRESS DECLARED WAR,
as Commander-In-Chief, the president is basicaly the highest general in the army, and is therefore capable (so far as i understand) of positioning the troops as he\she sees fit.

Congress gets to declare and FUND the war, not draw the battle plans.

If congress disagrees with the president on how the war is being fought, it has the right to re-position or withhold funding.

Got it?

Indian Summer

He's fucking annoying. He's equivalent to Chris Dodd on the Dem card.....getting just enough votes to be annoying, but still no chance in hell of getting the nom.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Indian Summer wrote:

He's fucking annoying. He's equivalent to Chris Dodd on the Dem card.....getting just enough votes to be annoying, but still no chance in hell of getting the nom.

If he annoys you so much, why do you keep talking about him?

seems kinda odd doesn't it?

Indian Summer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

If he annoys you so much, why do you keep talking about him?

seems kinda odd doesn't it?

you bring him up, I just laugh at him. He's got about the same shot of being president as you or I.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Indian Summer wrote:

you bring him up, I just laugh at him. He's got about the same shot of being president as you or I.

You have to look at the past 100 years out of the last several thousand to really understand what RP is trying to accomplish. This is why his message is getting a ton of international attention. It's bigger then the US as a country itself.

The alternative is to start killing a whole lot of people, and soon.

Indian Summer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You have to look at the past 100 years out of the last several thousand to really understand what RP is trying to accomplish. This is why his message is getting a ton of international attention. It's bigger then the US as a country itself.

The alternative is to start killing a whole lot of people, and soon.

So you think he can reverse the last 100 years in a 4 year term? Or an optimistic 8 year term? You're not realistic....not even somewhat reasonable!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Indian Summer wrote:

So you think he can reverse the last 100 years in a 4 year term? Or an optimistic 8 year term? You're not realistic....not even somewhat reasonable!

So don't even bother is your solution?

nice solution...think often do you?

Indian Summer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

So don't even bother is your solution?

nice solution...think often do you?

You gotta start small....and work up to the big picture. We're in pretty bad shape right now and your main concern is dismantling the government......WTF....the government needs to finish a few things before we start taking it down a notch.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Indian Summer wrote:

You gotta start small....and work up to the big picture. We're in pretty bad shape right now and your main concern is dismantling the government......WTF....the government needs to finish a few things before we start taking it down a notch.

In bad shape for a specific reason.

Finish something?

Finish what?!