Originally posted by whodey
Obama is just as principled as Ron Paul? You mean the way Obama went to war without declaring war or consulting Congress? You mean like his endless Executive Orders which Ron Paul swears he will avoid using because they are unconstitutional? Is Ron Paul the modern day Jesus Christ everyone wants a peice of but rejects him in his entirety?
Pfft. If anyone deserves a Nobel Peace Prize it ain't the joker in the White House, rather, it's Ron Paul.
President Obama was well within his executive power to lead the US participation in the Libyan conflict, and Congress funded that participation. To imply that the intelligience and small amount of equipment/funds contributed by the US to that conflict required a declaration of war is ridiculous. The framers of the Constitution never intended that the President as Commander-in-Chief would be so restricted. Moreover, the framers would have supported the President ignoring the unconstitutional War Power's resolution. In sum, the President made an excellent call in America's interest.
Further, the idea that any government action including an executive order is bad is stupid. Indeed, it is beneficial to America to have a strong executive who actually governs including issuing executive orders instead of a do-nothing president. Also, excutive orders are amply supported by the Consitution. After all, the executive "branch" is one of the three branches of government.
Lastly, Ron Paul has a very distorted and unsupported interpretation of the Constitution, and would be very bad for America as president.