Always be wary of politicians who claim they are the only honest brokers, or they are the only ones who are committed to what's right, or they are the only ones who are principled.
The people who make such claims can rarely back up their self-regard. They almost never achieve the things they claim to sand for. And often they have such high opinions of themselves because they don't know as much as they think they do.
Libertarians are particularly wretched people, and it is to my never-ending frustration that conservatives - desperate for allies anywhere they can get them, I guess - mistake these simpletons for brothers-in-arms. They are not. The person who's against everything will invariably be against some of the same things you're against, which means you may have some commonalities but it doesn't mean that person is really committed to the same things you are.
With all this in mind, consider the insistence of Rand Paul - a libertarian who pretends to be a conservative so he can maintain electoral viability - that President Trump's attack on Syria was unconstitutional:
First let's deal with the question of whether the attack really was unconstitutional because Trump did not first receive congressional authorization: Paul is wrong. Not just wrong but spectacularly wrong.
Paul claims he is a "non-interventionist" when it comes to matters abroad, but he really is an isolationist. He does not want America engaged with the world at all. Remember, I warned you about the crank who is against everything. Conservatives believe in limited government that should only be involved with the essential things that only government can do. Military operations are among those things.
Libertarians believe in basically no government at all for anything but the enforcement of contract laws
Libertarians believe in basically no government at all for anything but the enforcement of contract laws. They claim to support the armed forces, but that's a lie. They oppose every conceivable mission the armed forces might have, and they opposed every method of raising funds to support what they do. Libertarians think it is a virtue that they are "consistent," but it is not. Anyone can unthinkingly oppose everything and claim consistency. What is the value of that? Nothing at all. The thinking person considers the merits of ideas and makes decisions based on those merits. A dull automaton just opposes everything because it's easier than thinking.
So when Paul claims the attack was unconstitutional, his motivation is the support of his isolationalist ideology. His argument conflates every conceivable type of military action with "war" in a legal sense, and insists Trump cannot attack Syria because only Congress can declare war.
But we are not at war with Syria. We bombed a strategic target in Syria. That is not the same thing. If Trump wanted to actually go to war with Syria, then yes, he would have to seek a declaration of war with Congress (on which Rand Paul would surely vote no). The constitutional requirement that the president seek a declaration of war from Congress cannot reasonably be construed to mean any action of any kind requires such a declaration. That would obviously eliminate any element of surprise and make a retailiatory action like Thursday's impossible. While Congress holds televised committee hearings and engages in weeks' worth of debates, I think Assad will have plenty of time to move his chemical weapons.
Would Paul prefer a land invasion and a drawn-out ground war to the firing of 59 Tomahawk missiles? Because if you can't even launch the missiles without a declaration of war, presidents would have to consider more protracted military commitments in order to make the pursuit of congressional authorization worth the effort.
Support Canada Free Press
The War Powers Act of 1973 gives the president leeway to engage in certain operations for up to 90 days before needing congressional approval to continue
The War Powers Act of 1973 gives the president leeway to engage in certain operations for up to 90 days before needing congressional approval to continue. Some say that by passing this act, Congress was delerict in giving up its own authority on the matters. But others, myself included, believe the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional because it hamstrings the president's authority as commander-in-chief too much. Situations are going to come up around the world, and the president will have to be able to make quick decisions in response to these situations. If the president can't commit to an action without the assurance that Congress won't pull the plug 90 days later, he is seriously restricted in his ability to protect the nation's interests.
Michael Reagan made an interesting comment on social media over the weekend. He said that when his father decided in 1983 to invade Grenada, he didn't go to Congress first precisely because he expected at least some members of Congress would leak the information before the U.S. Armed Forces could execute the mission. That was the Congress of 1983. Does anyone seriously think the Congress of today - populated by the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Maxine Waters - wouldn't jeopardize the Armed Forces by leaking every bit as blatantly as Ronald Reagan feared a generation ago?
This is why it's a good thing Rand Paul got nowhere near the presidency. Had he been elected, thugs like Bashar Assad would have even less to fear than they did from Barack Obama. A President Paul would theoretically take no action without first precipitating a congressional debate that would eliminate every strategic advantage the United States might have had. But in reality, he would never take any action at all, because he is an isolationist at heart and does not want American engaged with the world.
Sometimes Rand Paul votes the same as conservatives, and when that happens, it's better than having him vote like a liberal. But he and other libertarians are still not our friends, and conservatives need to get that through their heads.
Oh, and the next time Rand Paul or anyone else tells you they are the only ones committed to the Constitution, just remember what kinds of people make such claims.
