Sen. Rand Paul penned an op-ed in the Daily Beast Monday condemning President Obama’s strikes against ISIS as “illegal” and calling for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to demand congressional authorization for war.
Paul argued in the op-ed that Obama must go to Congress to begin a war, and that he had no power to begin strikes under the War Powers Act since the nation was not under attack. “The War Powers Act does not allow for any military action to take place that is not authorized by Congress or to repel imminent attack. Period.”
It is a “fatal inconsistency,” Paul said, for conservatives to criticize Obama’s executive overreach in areas like health care and immigration legalization, but remain silent when he authorizes military strikes.
“Conservatives can’t simply be angry at the president’s lawlessness when they disagree with his policies,” Paul wrote. “They should end their conspicuous silence about the president’s usurpation of Congress’ sole authority to declare war—even if (especially if) they support going after ISIS, as I do.”
Paul also criticized Democrats who once stood up to Republican presidents for waging unauthorized wars, but who have grown curiously silent during the Obama administration. “Was it always just a partisan attack on Republican presidents?” Paul wondered.
The senator listed the consequences of “unfettered presidential power”: “Proponents of this theory argue that congressional laws cannot limit the president’s power to perform warrantless searches, carry out wiretaps, detain perceived enemies of the state, or even torture people—not just of enemy soldiers, but American citizens not engaged in combat.”
Paul is toeing a careful line on ISIS: appeasing more mainstream Republicans by supporting strikes, but hearkening back to his libertarian roots by calling for a vote.
He recently outlined his new foreign policy vision of “conservative realism,” after admitting “As world events change, obviously you change your analysis.”
