this guy... seriously
first of all, the US president is commander-in-chief. if every war since world war II has been illegal, explain why no president has been impeached for this reason? if you can't explain that (and i know you can't) then your point is without a leg to stand on. besides your asinine citation of james madison, you seem oblivious to how the constitution and checks and balances actually work (or don't work). constitutional practice supersedes constitutional meaning. quote chief justice rehnquist, Dames & Moore v. Regan: "[A] systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned … may be treated as a gloss on 'Executive Power' vested in the President by §1 of Art. II. Past practice does not, by itself, create power, but long-continued practice, known to and acquiesced in by Congress, would raise a presumption that the [action] had been [taken] in pursuance of its consent." if congress wants to review this legislation and executive practice by properly defining war (good luck with that), but until then, get over it, and tell ronny p to get over it too.
the fact is the president does have the prerogative to introduce US forces into hostilities, and this is precisely because of the indeterminate language of the constitution (which rules out supreme court action on this issue because it is perpetually regarded as a 'political question' and promptly dismissed by the court). obama did end up giving congress due notice of his commitment of forces to the Libyan conflict in accordance with the war powers resolution. but more importantly, if NATO allies began to enforce a no-fly zone without the US, and were subsequently attacked by Libyan forces, in accordance with the NATO treaty the US would be obliged to commit forces, making it even easier for the president to do so. once again, you don't have a leg to stand on.
eisenhower was bringing TEN MILLION FUCKING TROOPS home to a boom-time economy. that is completely different to the present situation and is therefore irrelevant. not only that, but those troops were given huge vocational subsidies and guidance, and benefited from the G.I. bill... is ron paul going to expand federal government?
the president does not have the power to "get rid of the FED", it simply is not going to happen like that. if anything, change will be incremental (the conservative way!). or, ron paul will be assassinated by the red shield, a la JFK and old abe, for daring to defy the fed. i also don't give a fuck what ron paul thinks "capitalism" is, but the question here really is not whether the US is 'really' capitalist or not (show me a true scotsman anyways).
listen, no one here is really disagreeing with ron paul's social or even economic libertarianism. i agree with a lot of his policies. but you sound just like some cunt talking about obama in 2007, which goes to show how absurd this whole business is. you know, if campaign finance was better regulated, ron paul might win (the irony is rich). but as that isn't the case, my money is on mittens, or maybe gingko
