Ron Paul vs. James Baker on Revised War Powers Act

by | Mar 6, 2009 | News | 25 comments

Note the presence of the brilliant Daniel McAdams backing up Dr. Paul and the ungentlemanly belligerence of Baker.

Note also that Baker’s argument rests on the premise that the constitution is dead and that without the War Powers Act, or his new replacement for it, there would be no restriction on presidential war making whatsoever – Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, among others, notwithstanding.

Paul is right, as usual. The War Powers Act – which “allows” the president to start wars for 60 days before Congress can assemble to swing their rubber stamp and “support the troops” – should be repealed and replaced with nothing but the perpetual threat of impeachment.

Baker’s plan is no substitute for an actual rule of law. (Ha.)

(Cross-posted at Stress.)

Scott Horton is editorial director of Antiwar.com, director of the Libertarian Institute and host of the Scott Horton Show from ScottHorton.org. He’s the author of the 2017 book, Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan, the 2021 book Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism and the 2024 book Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine, and editor of The Great Ron Paul: The Scott Horton Show Interviews 2004–2019 and Hotter Than the Sun: Time to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. He’s conducted more than 6,000 interviews since 2003. Scott lives in Austin, Texas with his wife, investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna Horton. He is a fan of, but no relation to the lawyer from Harper’s. Scott’s Twitter, YouTube, Patreon, Substack.

Join the Discussion!

We welcome thoughtful and respectful comments. Hateful language, illegal content, or attacks against Antiwar.com will be removed.

For more details, please see our Comment Policy.