Hearing of the International Organizations, Human Rights , and Oversight Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee - War Powers for the 21st Century: The Constitutional Perspective

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very much you calling these hearings and bringing this distinguished panel before us, a very necessary discussion.

I want to welcome our colleague Walter Jones who has a bill in dealing with this subject, H.J. Res. 53. And it's good to have him here because that's an important piece of legislation trying desperately to correct a problem that we have.

And some may argue that we should allow the executive branch to have more authority and give up on the legislative branch. I'm not quite there yet. I think our biggest problem that we have faced is the unusual willingness of the legislative branch to give up on its prerogatives and its responsibilities. But it is correct to say that, yes, it's pretty amazing that Congress doesn't declare war, yet they fund it. And it is true they should quit funding it. That is the way to do it. And there are a few who have practiced that approach.

But I think this is one issue. Sometimes we can go back and look at a few things in the Constitution, and we would have wished the Founders would have described things a little more clearly. But I don't think on the war issue they could have been more clear. It is in the hands of the Congress. And it's not too difficult to find the difference between the definition of making war and declaring war.

But if we're declaring war and a state of war -- and I would say we were in a state of war with Korea and Vietnam and Iraq -- but certainly the president has the responsibility to repel invasions and to defend this country without calling the Congress together. But as far as declaring and fighting a prolonged war, there is no doubt the Founders did not want that to be in the hands of the executive branch. That was to be in the hands of the legislative branch.

This to me is one of the most important issues. Although I entered politics with a very definite interest in economic policy and inflation, there is a connection between our ongoing wars and our economic problems here at home. I wish the Founders would have been much clearer about never borrowing money. And I believe Jefferson argued that case. But of course, we were allowed to borrow. But they didn't provide for an income tax. They shouldn't have provided for the borrowing. And they certainly objected to the inflating of the currency in order to finance these wars.

The main beef that we all should have if we care about individual liberty is to understand the philosophy of Randolph Bourne when he said war is the health of the state. So if you liked a big government, if you liked the idea that you can tolerate big-government conservatives, then you have to be careless about the way we go to war. If we are at this point where we want the executive branch to have more authority and more say, the Constitution needs to be amended rather than us just carelessly standing by and permitting the executive branch to wage war.

But to me, it's a vital issue. It's a typical thing, though, when Congress comes to solve a problem, like they did in 1973 in order to prevent Vietnam, you better watch out because whether it's accidental or whether there's a loophole and they work it around or there's an ulterior motive for those who are solving our problems, they permit it to exist that we actually made our problems worse. And that's what I think happened on the War Powers Resolution. And quite frankly, as much as I endorse what Congressman Jones says -- I'm a co- sponsor and am very supportive of that -- ultimately someday my position would be we ought to just repeal that and, you know, do something really radical, obey the Constitution.

And I yield back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source