WATCH: Rand Paul accuses Obama of reducing Congress to 'theatre' over Syria

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3862624.html

Rand Paul Accuses Obama Of Reducing Congress' Role In Syria To 'Constitutional Theater' (VIDEO)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEcch-r28Bc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday accused the Obama administration of reducing Congress' role in the authorization process for potential airstrikes on Syria to "constitutional theater."

During a hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Paul argued the White House would be "making a joke" of Congress if it left open the possibility that President Barack Obama would proceed with his plan to use military force in the nation even if lawmakers vote against U.S. intervention.

"If we do not say that the Constitution applies, if we do not say explicitly that we will abide by this vote, you're making a joke of us," Paul told Secretary of State John Kerry. "You're making us into theater, and so we play constitutional theater for the president."

"If this is real, you will abide by the verdict of Congress. You're probably going to win," he added. "Just go ahead and say it's real, and let's have a real debate in this country and not a meaningless debate, that in the end you lose and say, 'Oh well, we had the authority anyway, we're going to go ahead and go to war anyway.'"

Kerry was quick to reject Paul's assertion. "Senator, I assure you there's nothing meaningless, and there is everything real," he said.

But Paul pressed on, pointing out that the vote would only make a difference if the White House adhered to the will of its legislative body. Kerry, who had already said earlier in the hearing that he didn't know what Obama would do if Congress voted down a resolution on Syria, once again put the onus on the commander-in-chief.

"I will leave to the man who was elected to be president of the United States the responsibility for telling you what his decision is," he said. "But the president intends to win this vote, and he's not going to make prior announcements."

The Obama administration has been noncommittal on how it will proceed in the unlikely event that Congress doesn't authorize military action in Syria. Shortly after the president announced his intention to seek approval from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, senior administration officials held a briefing with reporters in which they refused to even discuss the possibility that Congress could fail to get behind the president's plan of action.

Kerry repeatedly stressed during appearances on Sunday talk shows that Obama has the right to act in Syria "no matter what Congress does."

Paul said he was "pleasantly surprised" when he first heard Obama was turning to Congress for a vote, only to be dismayed by the idea that he and his colleagues wouldn't necessarily get to determine how the U.S. government ultimately responds to Syrian President Bashar Assad's purported use of chemical weapons.

"I was proud that he was my president. I didn't vote for him, and I still am opposed to him quite a few times, but I was proud that he did this," Paul said. "I was just about to stand on my feet and clap and give him a standing ovation, but then I heard, well, if I lose the vote, I'll probably go ahead and do the bombing anyway. I want to be proud of the president but every time I am just about there, I get word that he doesn't really mean it."

Paul has been one of the most vocal opponents of U.S. military involvement in Syria, and on Sunday he claimed the rebels were aligned with al Qaeda and "attacking Christians." When the president first announced his intent to pursue targeted missile strikes in the region, Paul immediately called for an open debate in Congress and refuted the notion that Obama has the constitutional authority to act unilaterally.

---

Well worth a watch of the video, Paul gives Kerry a heated lesson on how the US Constitution is supposed to work - that the Congress of the United States has the sole power to declare war and not the executive branch aka a President Bush or Obama. It does seem though, that although Obama is hinting at ignoring any vote he loses anyway, that at least he's come to the Congress - most likely due to the pressure that the British vote has put on the US over this.

Apparently Paul is threatening a possible filibuster again over the Syria issue - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...on-syria-vote/

Thoughts? are with you President Obama over this or Senator Paul?

So if congress, and congress alone can only declare war, what happens to Obama if he goes ahead with action when congress voted against it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

So if congress, and congress alone can only declare war, what happens to Obama if he goes ahead with action when congress voted against it?

---

They get around it (see video of Kerry getting mad) by saying that it's not a declaration of war but an 'action' - but we all know that firing missiles at another country and invading it's airspace is an act of war and thus should be declared as a war.

That's how Obama has got away with it over Libya and Bush did the same before in his military adventures. In a fair world where lawmakers and the government actually followed their own laws (the constitution), then the executive declaring a war would be rightly seen as illegal and the President impeached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

They get around it (see video of Kerry getting mad) by saying that it's not a declaration of war but an 'action'

---

I think the idea is that if they argue that they're acting in the interest of immediate national security (Think incoming ICBMs) then the president is not only able to take action but also able to declare war. I imagine if the president can't get congressional approval (Which seems unlikely as the republicans aren't exactly anti-war, not even just to spite Obama) then some evidence will come to light that Syria has means of launching gas attacks on US interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

then the executive declaring a war would be rightly seen as illegal and the President impeached.

---

Indeed Joe Biden himself stated, after studying constitutional law for something like 20 years, that it is an impeachable offence.

I smell Nixon coming off of Obama. Not sure why, as I'm sure Nixon was in trouble for privacy reasons rather than war. Plus it sounds better to say "I smell Nixon" than "I smell Bush" :P Bush was a terrible one for going to war for literally no reason and getting involved in matters that would only hurt the reputation his country and cause greater instability in global politics and peace than he could possibly imagine (as he and Obama look at the world with blinkers on).

I don't think most people would expect Kerry to announce such critical points on the presidents behalf. They are things that realistically only the president can answer. While that video is interesting and Paul makes some good points, it serves more as a public promotion for the anti-attack side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

I smell Nixon coming off of Obama. Not sure why, as I'm sure Nixon was in trouble for privacy reasons rather than war. Plus it sounds better to say "I smell Nixon" than "I smell Bush" :P Bush was a terrible one for going to war for literally no reason and getting involved in matters that would only hurt the reputation his country and cause greater instability in global politics and peace than he could possibly imagine (as he and Obama look at the world with blinkers on).

---

Well, to be fair, pretty much all of the US presidents get involved in stuff like this if "world peace" is threatened. Americans are brought up instilled with the notion that America is the 'superhero' of the world. The country that beat back communism and nazism. I think this is why so many Americans feel its their duty to militarily aid the world, just as their ancestors did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

Americans are brought up instilled with the notion that America is the 'superhero' of the world. The country that beat back communism and nazism. I think this is why so many Americans feel its their duty to militarily aid the world, just as their ancestors did.

---

Do you know who else wanted to militarily aid the world? Hitler. This is why it's the UN's responsibility, not the american's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Do you know who else wanted to militarily aid the world? Hitler. This is why it's the UN's responsibility, not the american's.

---

Hitler wanted to create an empire, hence the term "third reich". I think you misunderstood my post because i'm not sayIng that it is the responsibility of the US, but I was pointing out that it's the way many Americans think.

So for everyone thinking that the US getting involved is a bad idea, what would you propose to sort the situation out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

So for everyone thinking that the US getting involved is a bad idea, what would you propose to sort the situation out?

---

Well if your aim or hope is for simply for as less death to result as possible from this ongoing civil war, then the best bet is to allow the conflict to continue as Assad is currently winning the rebels - any arming of the rebels will now at this point prolong the conflict, create a stalemate and result in more death. But even if we were at a stalemate now - why have we got to 'do' something? wars and uprisings are a part of life and will always be a part of geopolitics and world history, and no amount of BBC or UN handwringing from western liberals will change that.

If you ask me what the best solution is and the best way to solve the problems that exist in Syria are long term, then I actually think a stalemate of some sort would be very good (although bad in terms of deaths in the short term) as it would likely result in the carving up of Syria into majority Kurdish, Alawite and Sunni states and the dissolution of Syria which, as a long term thing, would result in less hatred between groups as they would then have their own real nations in which there is a unified demos between the people.

In other words, it would be an end to the multicultural false-nation of Syria - and i'd argue the same would be best for Iraq and others too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Do you know who else wanted to militarily aid the world? Hitler. This is why it's the UN's responsibility, not the american's.

---

The UN doesn't have any military responsibilities because it isn't a country. The UN is, and always will be, a talking shop which will expire just as the League of Nations did when that geopolitical setup ended.

Saw this as the top rated YouTube comment on the video above -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User comment

Kerry's new definition of war. I guess when Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they didn't declare war to US.  To them in fact it was a limited strike.

---