The point is this…..starting with the Barbary Pirates example, Congress has acquiesed historically in an interpretation of the President’s powers as Commander in Chief that give him (or, given the likely outcome of the November `08 election, her) the authority to take military action in defense of American interests without having to ask for a declaration of war.

Legally and practically, returning to the status quo circa 1793 isn’t going to happen.

Because our Congress and President have acted unconstitutionally in the past, we should accept that as precedent and no longer demand a constitutionally limited republic? What would you suggest we replace it with?

When it comes to Presidents acting like monarchs, we’ve already returned “to the status quo circa 1793”. Perhaps we should move towards a 21st century constitutional republic which requires mores than the whim of a king and his favored nobles to drag us into foreign adventures until we’re broke and vulnerable.

DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!

“Legally and practically, returning to the status quo circa 1793 isn’t going to happen.”

Unless, of course, we elect leaders who decide to decisively restore previous limitations on the power of the federal government, which Ron Paul has given every indication that he plans to do to the best of his ability. That little bill he sponsored to reverse the greatest transgressions of the Bush administration was a nice demonstration of good faith.

Of course it doesn’t work whenever those who purport to be supporters of limited government and the Constitution engage in fatalistic nay-saying and attempt to submarine Paul’s positions with poorly-argued or nonexistent problems.

You’re a smart guy, Doug, I certainly won’t argue that you aren’t. I also believe that you’re an honest person and I respect a lot of what you have to say. But you’re a pessimist when it comes to Ron Paul when you should be a skeptic, and it undermines everything that you claim to support. Nobody will buy into what you’re saying you believe if in the next paragraph you constantly make arguments to undercut the politicians you claim represent those views.

Straddle fences all you want, Doug…it’s a free society after all. But if you’re interested in pushing a pro-freedom agenda instead of just bitching about how it never happens, it’s time to pick a side in this race and back your candidate without the obligatory qualifying remarks about how he can’t possibly win. Because frankly, nobody who backs Paul’s campaign really wants or needs to hear it nor, at this point, should they have to.

Congress did authorize the Iraq War. They may now regret it, but what’s done…..is done.

And as for the argument about Constitutionality, it’s sort of moot at this point.

And here’s why.

There’s a fairly good argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison — wherein it asserted the power of judicial review — was, if not unconstitutional, at least an overly broad interpretation of Article III.

That said, it’s been over 200 years since that decision was rendered. It is part of the Constitution now, and no sane legal scholar would suggest that it should be overturned.

The point is this…..starting with the Barbary Pirates example, Congress has acquiesed historically in an interpretation of the President’s powers as Commander in Chief that give him (or, given the likely outcome of the November `08 election, her) the authority to take military action in defense of American interests without having to ask for a declaration of war.

Legally and practically, returning to the status quo circa 1793 isn’t going to happen.

I was looking at poll results and drawing conclusions, its a thing we Poli Sci wonks do.

In addition to what UC said, I want to remind you that I know you’re familiar with the Forbes polls and you never mention them. It cannot be dismissed as an “outlier” because it asks completely different questions, something I would expect a “Poli Sci wonk” to understand.

For those of you playing at home, Forbes asks likely voters if they’re aware of a certain candidate. If yes, they ask for the respondent’s impression of that candidate.

Until just recently, Ron Paul had not made it past 10% awareness, so they didn’t rank his “appeal”. He is now at 11% awareness and his “appeal” is 31%. Most of the big names are scattered throughout the 30s, so he’s right in the hunt.

He’s polling low because nobody knows him!
But they’re learning, you prick. He has enough money to get the message out. It’s inevitable now. He may not win, but if you actually believe he’ll go from 11% awareness to 70% without gaining significant ground… All I can say is I hope no one is dumb enough to pay for your poli sci advice.

You’re ruining a good site and I hope your peers recognize it before it’s too late. Libertarianism is going to get a ton of attention during this election cycle and you have the opportunity to welcome newcomers and show them that there is such a thing as intellectual, nonpartisan discussion.

Instead, you spam your own site with this drivel and drown out the good work of your peers.

You’re correct, Congress didn’t declare war against the Barbary pirates, but they authorized action against them and the actions authorized were unquestionably over matters of self-defense (a level that Iraq never under any circumstances rose to). Clearly there is a historical precedent of using military force without declaring war. Does this mean that it is Constitutional? I’d side with Paul’s interpretation that it is not in the case of military force deployed against nation-states (such as Iraq or Iran). In the case of smaller non-state actors such as the Barbary pirates, al-Qaeda, or the Taliban (who were arguably not a functional government), it’s a bit grayer. Paul clearly didn’t feel a formal declaration of war was necessary in the case of Afghanistan, since his opposition to Bush’s war there came only when Bush exceeded his mandate and ignored al-Qaeda to focus on nation-building (the broadly-worded declaration only gave him authority to go after the groups and nations involved with 9/11), so even though Paul was willing to forego a formal declaration of war he clearly believes that Congress should define the limits of any military engagement. That was certainly the case with the Barbary pirates as well.

In any case, the Barbary pirate example is not an argument that the executive branch has the right to define a conflict or make military decisions unilaterally, as Doug (and Bush) have claimed.

Yes, you were…

“…the American people are not isolationist and would not necessarily endorse a foreign policy that could basically be summed up as “bring all the boys home from everywhere,” or support a candidate who advocated such a strategy.”

As for your example,

“Thomas Jefferson apparently disagreed given the actions against the Barbary Pirates.”

The United States Navy attacked the Barbary pirates because they were conducting direct attacks against U.S. shipping and citizens engaged in lawful commerce and activity in international waters. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates ) This justified a self-defensive response, which Ron Paul would likely agree with. If you wish to know that with absolute certainty, I suppose you could always contact his campaign and ask.

Incidentally, the Continental Congress authorized action in both the First and Second Barbary Wars, so your assertion of executive prerogative in those conflicts was incorrect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War

So you’re now admitting that your remark was about Paul after telling us that it wasn’t. Are you starting to get why people blast you and why the Paulestinians so often call you a neo-con plant and a liar?

I was looking at poll results and drawing conclusions, its a thing we Poli Sci wonks do. I wasn’t talking about RP’s foreign policy ideas at all.

“Doesn’t the Constitution give the President authority to act without Congressional approval its a matter that falls short of a declaration of war?”

Not according to Ron Paul’s interpretation of it.

Thomas Jefferson apparently disagreed given the actions against the Barbary Pirates.

And it is at least conceivable that there are times where a threat is so imminent that there isn’t sufficient time to get to Congress.

So you’re now admitting that your remark was about Paul after telling us that it wasn’t. Are you starting to get why people blast you and why the Paulestinians so often call you a neo-con plant and a liar?

“Doesn’t the Constitution give the President authority to act without Congressional approval its a matter that falls short of a declaration of war?”

Not according to Ron Paul’s interpretation of it.

And since you did make this about Ron Paul with your comment about “candidates”, I’ll also point out that it won’t matter what President Paul thinks on the subject because he will defer to Congress in accordance with the Constitution.

Doesn’t the Constitution give the President authority to act without Congressional approval its a matter that falls short of a declaration of war ?

…poll results like these are a fairly strong indication that the American people are not isolationist and would not necessarily endorse a foreign policy that could basically be summed up as “bring all the boys home from everywhere,” or support a candidate who advocated such a strategy.”

IOW, interpreting the poll results to explain why Paul is continually below 5% in the polls (and yes, I know there have been a few outliers, but the average is well below 5%). Foreign policy may be one of the reasons, it may not.

The crucial question that I have not gotten a straight answer to yes is why anyone seriously thinks that, in the 21st Century, only nations that can directly attack the American mainland are a threat sufficient to justify either actual or threatened military or non-military action.

You haven’t gotten a “straight answer” because no one here has said such a thing. In fact, UC has already explicitly distanced himself from such a position.

And since you did make this about Ron Paul with your comment about “candidates”, I’ll also point out that it won’t matter what President Paul thinks on the subject because he will defer to Congress in accordance with the Constitution.