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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Uh, the President doesn't need authority to commit troops.

So..what military action do you think WOULD require the consent of Congress?

A declaration of war. What the US is carrying out against ISIS isn't war, it's protecting an ally from terrorism.

ISIS is a rebel/insurgent army. No matter how much cruelty the insurgents use an insurgency isn't an act of terrorism. Fighting a mass insurgency is war.

Not really, especially if it falls under meeting the terms on an alliance.

What alliance?  When did we sign, let alone ratify a treaty making us and Iraq allies?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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Treaties do not count, as the Constitution is theoretically the highest law of the land, and thus could only be legally superseded by an amendment process.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.