Sen. Paul Blocks New Iran SanctionsDemands Amendment to Stop Administrationís Unilateral Use of Force
Mar. 28, 2012
Leftist Agitator Filmed Attacking Right-Wing Protester in CA is Middle School Teacher
Racist Blacks Threaten 16yo Black Trump Supporter's Life, Dox His Place of Work
Ann Coulter: "Trump's Popularity Can't Be Measured By Traditional Polls"
Soros Bets $110m Shorting Germany's Biggest Bank
Walls For Me But Not For Thee: Zuckerberg Builds Giant Wall Around Hawaii Property
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to oppose unanimous consent of a new set of sanctions on Iran and introduced an amendment that would ensure that nothing in the act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria, and that any such use of force must be authorized by Congress.
Below is video and transcript of that exchange.
Reserving the right to object, I'm amazed the Majority Party objects to an amendment which simply restates the Constitution.
Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power declare war to the Executive. They were quite concerned that the Executive could become like a king.
Many in this body cannot get boots on ground fast enough in a variety of places, from Syria to Libya to Iran. We don't just send boots to war. We send our young Americans to war. Our young men and women, our soldiers, deserve thoughtful debate.
Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of and over the authorization of war and over the motives of the war.
James 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.
My amendment is one sentence long. It states that nothing in this act is to be construed as a declaration of war or as an authorization of the use of force in Iran or Syria. I urge that we not begin a new war without a full debate, without a vote, without careful consideration of the ramifications of a third or even a fourth war in this past decade. I, therefore, respectively object.