In the best of all worlds the nation would be much better off if it followed Ron Paul's ideas for domestic, fiscal, and monetary policy. Such a course of action would have prevented the current crisis in debt and the relentless march toward collectivism in a nation that is supposed to be held in check by a document called the Constitution.
But we do not live in the best of all worlds. Reality, it is an inconvenient thing. And when it comes to Ron Paul one is forced not only to take common-sense prescriptions for the nation's ills at home but the dubious and even dangerous notions concerning America's role on the world stage.
Red State's Streiff calls it 'bringing the crazy.'
In any number of areas Ron Paul ignores Constitutional realities that do not fit his preconceived notions about what constitutes 'constitutional.' He fails to differentiate between an 'act of war' and a specifically defined limited military mission. He fails to understand that the Constitution allows mutual defense treaties between allies, meaning of course that in the event one of those allies is attacked the U.S. is automatically obligated to provide military assistance. And he fails to recognize that the Framers themselves used troops in military missions without a declaration of war from Congress, pointing to the fact that such a declaration is needed only under certain defined circumstances.
Jefferson used troops to fight in the First Barbary War, without a declaration of war from Congress. Adams did the same thing in an undeclared war against France.
These facts of history are totally lost on Ron Paul. And the latest example of the disconnect is Paul's pronouncement concerning the possible no-fly zone in Libya. From Red State:
Last week we once again heard numerous voices calling for intervention in Libya. Most say the US should establish a “no-fly” zone over Libya, pretending that it is a benign, virtually cost-free action, and the least we could do to assist those trying to oust the Gaddaffi regime. Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. Establishing any kind of military presence in the sovereign territory of Libya will require committing troops to engage in combat against the Libyan air force, as well as anti-aircraft systems. The administration has stated that nothing is off the table as they discuss US responses to the unrest. This sort of talk is alarming on so many levels. Does this mean a nuclear strike is on the table? Apparently so.
In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist.
Streiff has a sharply-worded response for Paul:
As I’ve said before, I take backseat to no man in my contempt for this president and the incalculable damage he’s wrought on this nation. But to say that this administration which is congenitally unable to take any action outside punishing its domestic political opponents is considering the use of nuclear weapons in Libya simply marks one as crazy or, more likely, one who thinks his followers are morons.
Similarly, the statement that the President of the United States is Constitutionally proscribed from committing US military forces to a Libyan intervention, absent a declaration of war, is simply wrong in all its particulars. The idea that such was the understanding of the Founding Fathers is little more than a style of revisionism that one thought went out with the fall of the USSR.
As much as a non-interventionist mentality appeals to some people, such a thing is monumentally dangerous in the modern world. As the world's only remaining super-power there are responsibilities that go with the territory, not to mention that somebody, somewhere, needs to be the guardian of liberty given the fact that the United Nations is laughably incapable of filling such a role.
And there are at least 3 simple facts that should sound the death-toll once and for all for Ron Paul's aspirations for the Presidency--had the U.S. followed his policies Adolf Hitler would have become dictator of all of Europe, the Soviet Union would still dominate Eastern Europe, and the Berlin Wall would be still standing.
Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.
Subscribe by clickng the subscribe box beside my picture at the top of the page, or below, and an email will be sent to your inbox each time a new article is published.
Comments