Rand Paul on ISIS response: 'This war is now illegal'

[bedstuy]

Is the mutual defense agreement with Iraq actually a treaty?

^^^
Anyone?  Seems like this would be a relevant distinction re: Why the US would automatically be at war if a NATO ally is attacked, but not if an ally is attacked with whom we have a mutual defense agreement that isn't actually a treaty.

No, hardly anything is a treaty. 

As far as the Constitutionality, Lief is correct.  There is no formal system where the President needs to get permission from Congress to make decisions as commander-in-chief.

[bedstuy]

Is the mutual defense agreement with Iraq actually a treaty?

^^^
Anyone?  Seems like this would be a relevant distinction re: Why the US would automatically be at war if a NATO ally is attacked, but not if an ally is attacked with whom we have a mutual defense agreement that isn't actually a treaty.

No, hardly anything is a treaty. 

As far as the Constitutionality, Lief is correct.  There is no formal system where the President needs to get permission from Congress to make decisions as commander-in-chief.

The War Powers Act isn't formal?

It's unconstitutional.  A President can conform to the system it sets up, but it's totally at their discretion. 

[bedstuy]

Also, Democrats are not Quakers.  We're not anti-war doves in every situation.  These decisions aren't made by easy, bumpsticker platitudes, in favor or against.  It's an analysis of a variety of factors and it's always a tough choice based on the circumstances at hand. 

This is all consistent with what Obama has said for years.  Look up his 2002 speech on the Iraq War, his statements during the 2008 campaign, up through today, it's fairly consistent.  You may not like it.  You may want an idiot like Rand Paul making these decisions.  You may wish Obama had to ask Congress for permission.  But, that's not the case.  Deal with it.

[bedstuy]

All this "war" and "constitutional" business and what have you is all completely besides the point. Unless we're talking about a full fledged invasion of a sovereign state, then the President gets to do whatever he wants when it comes to military operations. If the commander in chief wants to deploy a small amount of troops or planes or ships to defend American interests, he can do that, especially when we already have military forces operating in the immediate region. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it always will be.

I can't wait for Lief et al. to cheer on our right-wing Republican president when he invades some random country 14 years from now. I'll be cheering right with them!

Come on.  Is it also hypocritical to think the President can appoint Supreme Court justices, but hope that it's going to be a Democratic President making the appointments?

It's certainly possible that we could elect a terrible foreign policy President like Mitt Romney or Rand Paul.  I wouldn't like it, but I also wouldn't make up these ridiculous arguments about "the power to declare war."