I have to admit, this is one of the reasons that I did not vote for Trump. He campaigned on building up our already overly funded, and massive military, claiming that Obama dismantled much of our military infrastructure. It was obvious whether it was Hillary or Trump, that we would be involved in more war-mongering.
For me Rand Paul was the only serious candidate who would abide by a reasonable foreign policy, and a constitutional administration. But here we are post election, despite approval on both sides of the isle by both Democrats and Republicans, we should not be in a war with anyone right now. No one has attacked American soil, and there is no evidence that anyone is going to. Therefore the war in Syria is not our concern or responsibility at this point.
One of the biggest questions on my mind constantly drifts to: “Where did the chemical weapons come from”? We know that Barack And Hillary had been “arming the Syrian rebels” (AKA Al Qaeda) for years, and had fueled conflict in the region. However what were those weapons?
A lot of other people are asking this same question: Where did the chemical weapons in Syria come from?
These undeclared wars have been going on for decades. Military actions considered to be “acts of war” have been launched in the past 2 presidents before Trump 37 times, 18 times by George W. Bush and 19 times by Barack Obama according to a Congressional Research Service report.
This hasn’t always been the case, since Article I of the constitution reads;
War Powers. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
Then 9/11 happened — changing the debate from “when can a president take action without authorization?” to “just how far does one authorization stretch?”
2001: one AUMF, more than three dozen military actions
On September 18, 2001 — in the post-9/11 rush to “do something” that also brought America the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security — Congress passed an authorization of military force that allowed the president to:
Use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
”It is a remarkable fact about the US Constitution,” Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith wrote Friday morning at the blog Lawfare, “that 228 years after its creation, we still don’t know what limits, if any, it imposes on unilateral presidential uses of military force.”
Article II of the Constitution says that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces — which means he’s responsible for directing them into battle. But Article I of the Constitution gives Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to declare war — and to appropriate funds to the Defense Department to wage it.
“The United States was not attacked. The president needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate,” said Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.
It is also important to note, what this will cost the tax payers. For a start, it looks like just the missiles alone will cost tax payers $59 million dollars.
Each Tomahawk missile, made by Raytheon Co. RTN, +1.47% likely cost $1 million, according to experts.
No Congress does not need to first declare war Dallas News
Meanwhile, I am glad to have made the decision to leave US soil, and take a hiatus from all of this crap.
Does anyone else think it is time to return to a constitutional republic yet?