Image 01 Image 03

Senate Votes to Table Rand Paul’s War Vote Amendment

Senate Votes to Table Rand Paul’s War Vote Amendment

Paul wanted to put war powers back where it belongs…the Senate.

The U.S. Senate has voted to table Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) amendment to repeal the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations that have allowed the U.S. military “to fight terrorism across the globe” in everlasting wars.

Paul wanted Congress to “reassert its authority to declare war from the Executive Branch.” Paul and others, including Democrats, have said that “the Senate is ceding its constitutional war powers” with these amendments.

Paul introduced his amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The amendment repealed the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Both of these passed war powers to the president:

“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Paul’s amendment would have gone into effect six months after the NDAA became law so the lawmakers could go home “to hear from the American people and thoroughly debate granting any new, specific authority.”

In his prepared remarks, Paul said:

I rise today to oppose unauthorized, undeclared, and unconstitutional war. What we have today is basically unlimited war – war anywhere, anytime, any place on the globe. This vote will be to sunset, in 6 months, the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force.

No one with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes these authorizations allow current wars we fight in 7 countries.

Some of the more brazen advocates of war maintain the President can even fight war in perpetuity without any Congressional authority. These advocates of perpetual war argue that the Article II powers of the President give unlimited war-making powers to the President.

Madison disagrees. Madison wrote that the executive is the branch of government “most prone” to war; therefore, the Constitution, “with studied care,” vested the power to declare war with the legislature.

Paul managed to gather support from Democrats. From CNN:

Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who has joined forces with Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona to draft a new war authorization, says he’s likely to back Paul’s amendment.

“I’m inclined to support it, because I think it will encourage the foreign relations committee to really grapple the Flake-Kaine AUMF,” Kaine told CNN.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) sided with Paul. The Washington Examiner reported:

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said lawmakers have the responsibility to debate because the 2001 authorization passed almost unanimously to fight the perpetrators of 9/11 in Afghanistan no longer applies to military operations 16 years later.

“Sen. Paul’s amendment gives us that opportunity by saying the ’01 and ’02 authorizations need to end,” Cardin said. “That we don’t today have clear authorization from Congress to pursue the military campaign against ISIS.”

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said it’s time to put such powers back in the hands of Congress.

“It is far too easy and convenient for this Congress to allow for an executive, whether it be a Republican or a Democrat executive, to define the parameters of war and to name new enemies that have not been before this body for debate,” he said.

Paul’s Republican colleagues agree with his sentiments, but think his amendment is the wrong way to do it. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) agreed we need a new AUMF, but not with Paul’s plan. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) wants the amendment to go through the Foreign Relations Committee.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


That would be one step forward, but is instead one giant leap backward. Either way, progress.

4th armored div | September 13, 2017 at 8:44 pm

would you trust these swamprats to babysit a puppy?
neither would i.
glad these cowards shelved the amendment – we no longer live in a time that fastest news arrived by a packet boat.

Rand Paul seems to have forgotten the recognition of the stateless global terrorism threat that prompted the Congress to pass the War Powers in the first place. Nor does Rand Paul note the increase of failed states during the Obama administrations which have multiplied the threats cited in the original call for the War Powers.

    You’re thinking of the AUMF or the Patriot Act – The War Powers act forces the President to go to congress and have them formally declare war before continuing hostilities. It’s in response to the undeclared Vietnam War.

    If congress weren’t so dysfunctional none of this would be a problem – they’d periodically debate the a declaration of war / authorization to use force and either extend or terminate it. But with Democrats more focused on having sit-ins rather than passing budgets, and Republicans being not much more useful, Congress is what it is.

      Paul In Sweden in reply to tyates. | September 14, 2017 at 9:56 am

      War Powers/War Authorizations no specific legislation cited because I cannot remember the specifics just as the articles are also non-specific relating to Paul’s redress amendment. Congress addressed the Stateless Terrorism threat by freeing the POTUS to address them immediately militarily. That threat not only still exists but has increased so I see no reason to change it.