Mediaboss Marketing

Every American condemns the atrocities in Syria, and we cannot help but be shaken by the images of innocent women and children dying. It is also true that often in foreign policy, things are not as simple as they appear, and actions often have consequences well beyond the obvious.

It is for this very reason that the Founders wanted a deliberate, thoughtful foreign policy, and when military action was needed, they wanted it debated and authorized by Congress.

Make no mistake, no matter who is president or what their party is, it is my firm belief that the president needs congressional authorization for military action, as required by the Constitution. I call on this president to come to Congress for a proper debate over our role in Syria, just as I did in 2013 when President Obama contemplated acting in Syria.

RAND PAUL DISCUSSES SYRIA ISSUE WITH FOX NEWS' BRIAN KILMEADE

I believe that nothing about this situation has changed. Military action is not in our national security interest and should not be authorized. Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different.

There is no doubt Assad is a brutal dictator. But if we seek to remove him, we must ask what comes next. Assad is fighting radical Islamic rebels, including large parts of ISIS. Who would take over Syria if Assad is deposed? Experience in Libya tells us chaos could reign, and radical Islamists could control large parts of the country.

Make no mistake, bombing Assad means the United States is fighting on the same side as ISIS and other radical Islamists in Syria. This is a dangerous and morally wrong policy.

But no matter your view of the merits of engaging in Syria, every member of Congress should stand up today and reclaim our Constitutional authority over war.

The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. Even the War Powers Resolution, shoved forward by hawks as justification, clearly states criteria under which the president may act a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States.

Thats it. Absent those criteria, the president has no authority to act without congressional authorization. Congress must stand up and assert its authority here and now.

No president is above the law or the Constitution. I said so when it was Barack Obama, and I will say so when it is Donald Trump.

Our Founding Fathers had this right, and we should heed their wisdom about allowing the president to have war powers. They were concerned the president could rule like a king.

Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.

Before any act of war, we should have a serious and thoughtful debate over the ramifications.

In Syria what is our goal? What happens if we depose Assad? Will the Islamist rebels, as they have threatened, turn their weapons and attention elsewhere, including Israel next door?

I will hold accountable and oppose the actions of any president who takes military action without proper legal authority and congressional consent.

Republican Rand Paul represents Kentucky in the United States Senate.

See the original post here:
Sen. Rand Paul: Syria, Trump and another unconstitutional ...

As Capitol Hill lawmakers sound off on Trump's missile strike against Syrian airfields late on Thursday, bipartisan criticism of the president's military move has emerged from Democrats and Republicans alike.

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii slammed President Trump on Thursday night for his decision to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles on Shayrat airfield, saying the move -- which is believed to have left six dead -- makes it "much harder" to prosecute Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for chemical weapons use on his own civilians.

"This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia," Gabbard said in a statement. "This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States' attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning."

RELATED: Criticism, praise emerges after Trump' Syria missile strike

9 PHOTOS

Criticism, praise emerges after Trump' Syria missile strike

See Gallery

While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked.

The President needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution.

Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer and Syria will be no different.

In statement, @TulsiGabbard condemns Trump's military action in #Syria, says he 'acted recklessly.' #HINews https://t.co/ciJjOaRYQe

Pelosi calls U.S. Airstrikes in Syria a "proportional response" https://t.co/D6tUuVKPwE

Senator Rubio releases statement after U.S. conducted air strikes against Assad regime in Syria https://t.co/KhhOQUoE2Q

Trump sent US ground troops to Syria last month purportedly to fight ISIS. Now our troops are at risk of being attacked by #Assad forces.

Watched @POTUS remarks. Congress authorized @POTUS to use force on terrorists. We NEVER authorized force to enforce chemical weapons treaty.

HIDE CAPTION

SHOW CAPTION

Gabbard sits on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, and received criticism earlier this year when she took a secret "fact-finding trip" to the Syrian city of Damascus.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky joined Gabbard in expressing skepticism around the Trump administration's Syria move, citing the constitution in a series of tweets, saying the president "needs Congressional authorization" for military action.

Other Republicans were supportive of the move, though, including Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida -- who applauded the "bravery and skill" of the Armed Forces who conducted the mission.

"President Trump has made it clear to Assad and those who empower him that the days of committing war crimes with impunity are over," Rubio said in a statement. "What must follow is a real and comprehensive strategy to ensure that Assad is no longer a threat to his people and to U.S. security, and that Russia no longer has free reign to support his regime."

WATCH: Pentagon releases footage of US airstrike on Syria

Democratic House minority leader Nancy Pelosi showed slight support for the Thursday night missile launch, calling it a "proportional response to the regime's use of chemical weapons," but then added the humanitarian crisis in Syria will "not be resolved by one night of airstrikes."

"If the President intends to escalate the U.S. military's involvement in Syria, he must come to Congress for an Authorization for Use of Military Force which is tailored to meet the threat and prevent another open-ended war in the Middle East," Pelosi added in her statement.

More from AOL.com: President Donald Trump locks horns with House Freedom Caucus Paul Ryan criticized for Autism Awareness tweet Devin Nunes temporarily steps down from US House investigation on Russia: statement

Read the original post:
RELATED: Criticism, praise emerges after Trump' Syria missile strike - AOL

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Republicans fought hard to confirm Justice Gorsuch, and with good reason.The reason many of them gave the full strength of their support was because they believed Justice Gorsuch would follow the Constitution adhering to the original text and meaning. He is from a group of legal scholars who consider themselves Originalists.

While many Republicans fawned over this quality, they displayed remarkable cognitive dissonance when it came to applying it to a very public event the very day they approved the Gorsuch nomination.

You see, too many of my colleagues have forgotten what it means to be an Originalist on the matter of going to war.

Our Founding Fathers found this to be one of the most important discussions at the time, and they were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the President.They were concerned an executive with that kind of power could choose to rule like a King.

Before sending our young men and women into battle, we should have a thoughtful and honest discussion about the ramifications, authorization, and motivations for war.

That could be done if we were all Originalists; not just for the court, but for our legislative duties as well.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants the Congress and Congress alone the power to declare war. The President is given the power to direct the military only after the Congressional declaration has been passed.

This is our law and was generally our practice.However, like in many areas, we began to abandon our founding principles for expediency. We have not declared a war since World War II and we have too often used our military without even a more modest Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

This is dangerous.As Madison wrote, the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it.The Constitution therefore, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.

I salute the nomination and confirmation of Justice Gorsuch and his Originalist views.

I salute and applaud my colleagues for their work to get him to the bench, and for the words they used attributing their vote to his views on the Constitution.

But I cant say I dont find it ironic that on the very day they did these things, they also turned a mostly blind eye to an illegal and unconstitutional military strike.

I will hold politicians of both parties and both branches accountable.I ran for office to protect our Rights and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution to the best of my ability. That means defending the Constitutionally granted power to declare war as one belonging to Congress, just as our Founding Fathers intended.

See the article here:
Exclusive-Sen. Rand Paul: Would an Originalist Unilaterally Bomb ... - Breitbart News

Sen. Rand Paul continued to voice his displeasure Friday after President Trump ordered airstrikes against Syria Thursday night in response to President Bashar Assad's usage of chemical weapons against his own civilians, warning of "unintended consequences."

The Kentucky Republican told reporters in the Capitol Friday morning that the continued decisions to topple regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere, including Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, have made things worse in those regions and could ultimately give rise to the Islamic State in Syria if Assad is taken out of power.

"There are often unintended consequences to this. The unintended consequences of toppling Hussein, who was also a despot, who also had gassed his people, was that we made Iran stronger. So the same neocons that wanted to get rid of Hussein now want to get rid of Iran, that they made stronger by getting rid of Hussein," Paul said. "So when they get rid of Assad, which is what all the neocons want, what if the next people that come into power are either ISIS or radical Islamic rebels. Would we go after them next? Is there an end to the progression of regime change in the Middle East?"

"Right now, we're kind of operating in an unconstitutional illegal zone, same we kind f have been doing for the last 15 years though under both Republican and Democrat presidents who have not really obeyed the law," Paul continued. "It's sort of farcical to say that the resolution to get the people who organized 9/11 has anything to do with today. It's farcical to say the Iraq resolution has anything to do with today."

"So really, they're not obeying the constitution. They're just doing whatever they want," he added.

The comments piggyback off of his initial reaction to the strikes, which he argued would not "make us safer" and would be "no different" than past interventions in the region. The Kentucky Republican also took aim at his colleagues over their lack of willingness to take a vote to authorize military force.

"They won't vote even on ISIS, where they had near-unanimity as wanting to do something. They wouldn't even take a vote on that," Paul said. "The constitution is, for all the debate we had over Supreme Court justices and fidelity to the constitution, virtually no one cares about the constitution when it comes to war."

When asked what could change for this to take place, he simply responded "different colleagues."

Paul also said that he has not talked to the White House about the strikes, either before or after they took place. He said any discussion now would be "a day late and a dollar short."

Also from the Washington Examiner

President Obama's former deputy national security adviser indicated Saturday that he isn't very happy with President Trump's decision to hit a Syrian air base with missiles.

Trump's missile strike, which was retaliation for Syria's use of chemical weapons, drew instant comparisons to Obama, who warned the U.S. would act if Syria used chemical weapons.

Obama did nothing after Syria crossed that "red line" of Obama's, and many said Trump was the one to finally enforce Obama's ultimatum years later.

But in an early Saturday morning tweet, Rhodes suggested that Trump's strike was only aimed at boosting his press coverage, and seemed to warn reporters against helping him achieve this.

04/08/17 4:04 PM

Read the original:
Rand Paul warns Trump of 'unintended consequences' over toppling ... - Washington Examiner

Rand Paul, Barbara Lee, Tim Kaine: 'Unconstitutional'; Schumer ... CNSNews.com "While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked," Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Thursday night in a statement on his website and ... and more »

See the article here:
Rand Paul, Barbara Lee, Tim Kaine: 'Unconstitutional'; Schumer ... - CNSNews.com