The American Spectator

The Spectacle Blog

Ron Paul's totally ahistorical understanding of foreign policy is a great example of something that drives me nuts about many antiwar libertarians. Says Paul:

If we had followed the rules he wouldn't have been able to do a thing, with no declaration of war. How can the commander in chief fight a war that hasn't been declared?

I said the other day that I think Congress should retain the power to declare war, but the idea that the Iraq War isn't "declared" in the constitutional sense is absurd. Just look at the first two American wars after the Revolution: In the Quasi-War, Congress authorized an expansion of the Navy and rescinded treaties with France, but never actually declared war on France. Congress didn't formally declare war in the First Barbary War, either, but it did authorize the President to order attacks on Tripolitan ships. An authorization of force, of course, is exactly what Congress gave the President in Iraq.

Another one of Paul's answers is just crazy. What does he say to libertarians who disagree with his restrictionist views on immigration? "If they don't agree, they'd have to be anarchists." Really?

topics:
Foreign Policy, Constitution, Iraq, Immigration