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

[SPC]

So...military conflicts don't count as wars if they involve alliances? Bro, do you even history?

That's not what anyone said. It's that the President doesn't need authorization from Congress to protect an ally with military force at their discretion. If an ally is attacked it counts as a declaration of war against America.

All because you don't agree with something doesn't make it "illegal".

I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress. (Of course, the Constitution has been a dead letter for quite some time now, so technically Obama's actions are constitutional in the sense that the constitution of the United States has essentially been national executive dictatorship with minor advisory roles for the legislative and judicial branches under the occasional procedural guise of the capital-C Constitution.

[SPC]

I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress.

Again, that's not what anyone said. Iraq (our ally, legally speaking) is under attack. The President has the right to use force to defend them. I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get around this.

Can you point to a provision that says that the President can go to war unilaterally so long as Iraq is under attack? Treaties do not count, as the Constitution is theoretically the highest law of the land, and thus could only be legally superseded by an amendment process.

[SPC]

I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress.

Again, that's not what anyone said. Iraq (our ally, legally speaking) is under attack. The President has the right to use force to defend them. I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get around this.

Can you point to a provision that says that the President can go to war unilaterally so long as Iraq is under attack? Treaties do not count, as the Constitution is theoretically the highest law of the land, and thus could only be legally superseded by an amendment process.

Obama has not "gone to war." Bombing ISIS is not a war.

I would think bombing a nation during a time of peace would be an even more heinous offense.

[SPC]

Isn't he technically wrong anyways? I mean wouldn't our mutual defense agreement with Iraq automatically justify military action in their defense? We don't need Congressional authorization because we're upholding our treaty obligations, right?

Foreign treaties override domestic legislation?

Yes, they do -- if America is to maintain credibility.

ISIS must die for the world to be safe. If we do not strike them in Iraq, then we will soon have to face them in a land war on Israeli territory. I am not saying that Israel would make a questionable ally; indeed, the Israelis would be just the ones to put up the most brutal fight that ISIS could ever imagine.

For one, Paul supports strikes against ISIS, but objects to the idea of one individual deciding which conflicts to enter without any authorization from the legislative body. Second, the idea that ISIS could conquer Israel is laughable.

[SPC]

I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress.

Again, that's not what anyone said. Iraq (our ally, legally speaking) is under attack. The President has the right to use force to defend them. I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get around this.

Can you point to a provision that says that the President can go to war unilaterally so long as Iraq is under attack? Treaties do not count, as the Constitution is theoretically the highest law of the land, and thus could only be legally superseded by an amendment process.

Actually, Congress has been authorizing the use of force going all the way back to the Quasi War with France without using a formal "declaration of war".  It's not just the war powers clause but also the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;" that is applicable when it comes to the use of force.

Fair enough, but where is the Congressional authorization for force against these landlocked pirates called ISIS?