Adam Dick

While the United States Constitution says authority over declaring and funding war resides in the Congress, US House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner refuses to allow a House vote regarding congressional authorization of the war on ISIS. Boehner says he disagrees with how President Barack Obama is pursuing the war. Boehner also says the House should vote on the war. But instead of calling a vote on the war — something Boehner could have done any time during the war’s escalation — Boehner just waits for the president to present him with a resolution that Boehner, like a diligent servant, promises to promptly put on the House floor for a vote.

Does Boehner not understand that he is the elected leader of one of two bodies of the legislative branch in which constitutionally the war declaration and war funding powers reside?

Has Boehner failed to hear any of his fellow House members’ appeals to him throughout the escalation of US military action against ISIS that the House should debate and vote the war up or down?

It seems incredibly unlikely that Boehner is so ignorant of the authority of the House and himself regarding the US government’s war on ISIS. A more likely explanation of Boehner’s decision to just go along with the president on the matter is that Boehner and other leaders in the House and Senate, who have long supported the war on ISIS, have no intention of taking any action that could in any way restrict Obama’s pursuit of the war.

Boehner’s deference to Obama regarding the war on ISIS is so great that Boehner expressed in an ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos aired Sunday that, while Boehner both thinks there should be a vote in the House and disagrees with how Obama is pursuing the war, Boehner will not bring the war issue to the House floor for a vote this year unless Obama presents him with the resolution to be considered. In fact, Boehner, who has refused to let the House vote on the war as it has escalated, says he would even call the House out of recess and back into session for a vote if Obama sends him a resolution authorizing the war.

Boehner sounds nothing like a leader in the branch of the US government charged with authorizing and funding wars in this exchange from the ABC interview:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I know you’ve said that – assuming you’re speaker next year – you’d want to have a vote on a resolution – why not now?

BOEHNER: I’d be happy to.

The president typically in a situation like this would call for an authorization vote and go sell that to the American people and send a resolution to the Hill. The president has not done that. He believes he has authority under existing resolutions to do what he’s done.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You don’t agree?

BOEHNER: I think he does have the authority to do it. But the point I’m making is this is a proposal that the Congress ought to consider.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Our reporter Jeff Zeleny has talked to a couple sources on Capitol Hill – said you and other leaders actually warned that if it came up now it would splinter both parties and might not pass.

BOEHNER: I did not suggest that to anybody in my caucus, or to the president for that matter.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So to be clear – if the president put a resolution forward now, you’d call Congress back?

BOEHNER: I’d bring the Congress back.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Industrial hemp activists from around the country visited United States Representatives’ and Senators’ offices in Washington, DC this week to make the case for repealing decades-old US government restrictions related to the plant. When the activists were meeting together after their congressional office visits, RPI Advisory Board Member and former US Rep. Dennis Kucinich dropped in and offered some comments regarding hemp.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

RPI Advisory Board Member Andrew Napolitano, speaking with Elisabeth Hasselbeck on Fox News regarding race and ethnicity questions people are required to answer to purchase a gun from a US government-licensed firearms dealer, explained that mandating answering questions on any form whatsoever violates speech and privacy rights. In short, Napolitano concludes, “It’s none of the government’s business who has guns.”

Napolitano, a former New Jersey state judge, explains that the right to keep and bear arms “is an extension of the natural right to defend yourself.”

In addition to violating privacy rights and the gun rights recognized in the Second Amendment, Napolitano details how the required completion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) form 4473 violates the right of speech recognized in the First Amendment. Napolitano says:

This is called forced speech. The First Amendment says Congress can’t infringe speech. The courts have interpreted that to mean Congress can’t also compel you to speak. So, the government can’t say, “Hey, Hasselbeck, what’s your race, what’s your ethnicity, and why do you want that gun?” The government doesn’t have the lawful, moral authority to do that. But, yet, that is what it is trying to do with these forms.

Watch the complete interview here:

While not addressed by Napolitano explicitly in the Fox News interview, the mandated completion of ATF form 4473 also violates the Fifth Amendment-recognized right against self-incrimination by making individuals provide information about themselves to the US government in order to complete a purchase.

Additionally, the required answering of the form’s questions is a violation of the Tenth Amendment given that the Constitution nowhere delegates to the US government the power to impose the mandate.

Because of the ATF form 4473 mandate, the US government respects some constitutional rights less for a person who tries to buy a gun from a US government-licensed firearms dealer than for a person who the government alleges committed a crime. The alleged criminal can assert and often have respected through the entire criminal investigation and prosecution process the right to remain silent.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Ron Paul, speaking Monday with Erin Ade on RT, explained that it is “foolish” for the United States to wage war on ISIS in Iraq and Syria, noting that the new war is a continuation of 24 years of foolish US war in the Middle East. Instead of extending the war another six or more years, Paul says “it’s time to quit” and bring the US military back home.

Paul, who is RPI’s chairman and founder, minces no words in explaining his opposition to the US war on ISIS:

Ade: Should the president take on ISIS in Iraq? I mean, does ISIS represent a clear and present danger to America?

Paul: No, absolutely not. It’s a foolish thing. It was foolish when we got involved in 1990-91; it was foolish in 2003 when we expanded it and invaded [Iraq], and the bombing in-between killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It’s time to quit, and time to say that it’s not working….

I would say it’s a bad deal. It’s bad for our national sovereignty. It doesn’t make us safer. It makes things more dangerous. It’s very costly. It sets the stage for an undermining of our civil liberties at home.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

In the United States, congressional leaders — both Democrat and Republican — have long supported the US war on ISIS. In Australia, though, there is some vocal opposition, including from Australia Senator and Australian Greens Party Leader Christine Milne.

Milne, opposed outright Australia’s involvement in the war in a Friday press release wherein she explains that the war is counterproductive and risks blowback:

“We cannot bring Australians together and combat extremism at home by blindly following the USA into yet another Iraq war,” said Senator Milne.

“It is not as simple as extremists hating us because of our way of life. They are also fuelled by our past engagement in Iraq with the Coalition of the Willing. Fighting US led Western imperialism is a rallying call for jihadists.

“We cannot ignore the fact that arming sectarian militia and dropping bombs in the Middle East will do absolutely nothing to combat extremism and violence at home in Australia and may make it much worse.”

Milne and other senators’ effort to require a Senate debate and vote on Australian military involvement in the war on ISIS failed with 44 “no” votes to 13 “yes” votes. All ten Greens in the Senate were joined in the vote by a Liberal Democratic Party senator, Palmer United Party senator, and one independent senator. Notably, no “yes” votes were cast by any of the Liberal Party of Australia and Australian Labor Party senators who together hold over two-thirds of the Senate membership.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.