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to start wars for 60 days before Congress can assemble to swing their rubber stamp and "support the troops" - should be repealed and replaced with nothing but the perpetual threat of impeachment.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.)
Did I hear him right? His response to the question that the bill would allow the prez & 1/3 of the congress to go to war is that Ron Paul can vote against the bill? i.e. you get one shot at voting against any and all wars from now on by voting against this bill.