On Thursday, a group of Republicans introduced a bill in the House and Senate that would reaffirm NATO’s Article 5 does not override congressional war powers. The effort was led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Warren Davidson (R-OH).
“I introduced a resolution reasserting that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty does not supersede Congress’s responsibility to declare war or authorize military force before engaging in hostilities,” Paul wrote in Responsible Statecraft.
NATO’s Article 5 outlines mutual defense commitments of the 31-member alliance but does not automatically mean the US must intervene militarily if a NATO ally comes under attack.
“For decades, many legislators have incorrectly interpreted Article 5 as an obligation that unquestionably commits the United States to provide military support should a NATO ally be attacked,” he wrote.
Article 5 states: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”
Paul noted that while NATO members are required to assist each other in the event of an attack, military action is not mandated. “Furthermore, Article 11 of the NATO Treaty states that the provisions of the Treaty are to be carried out in accordance with each country’s respective constitutional processes,” he wrote.
The legislation Paul introduced would express that Article 5 does not “supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war or authorize the use of military force prior to the United States engaging in hostilities.”
The bill was cosponsored in the Senate by Mike Braun (R-IN), Mike Lee (R-UT), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), and Josh Hawley (R-MO). Hawley was the only senator to vote against Sweden and Finland joining NATO. Explaining his reasoning for the vote, Hawley said he wants the US to focus on building alliances in the Asia Pacific, as he is a major China hawk. Paul voted “present” on admitting Sweden and Finland.
In the House, the Article 5 legislation was cosponsored by Reps. Dan Bishop (R-NC), Troy Nehls (R-TX), Harriet Hageman (R-WY), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Andrew Clyde (R-GA), Matt Rosendale (R-MT), and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).
Silly rabbit, tricks are for neocons.
Well neocons seem to abound…
By way of deception thou shalt do war. Hey, where have I heard that one before?
Mossad.
To imagine that Congress would even attempt to carry out its responsibility reasonably in the event of an Article 5 situation is dreaming … they haven’t wanted to peg back the president even for the ME wars; forget about anything involving NATO.
Resolutions have as much power as any attempt to get around Congressional war powers.
They should not have to resort to theater to remind their colleagues about the Constitution but their colleagues are idiots at times.
The odd thing is that all Article 5 says is that if a NATO member state is attacked, the other NATO member states have to do … well, whatever they happen to feel like doing.
Yes you are right about that.
It reminds me of when folks invokes “international law” as if there is a panel of Stars Wars-like judges (star chamber maybe for the old folks??) that the US, China, Russia, Brits,…. acquiesce to at all times.
We only follow international law when we want to follow internstional law….lol.
I brought up Star Wars….did I mention Z2U.com, a sketchy overseas eBay like site sells Disney+ access for a $1 (2months)? The sellers live in third-world Schiffholes and may be using sketchy payment means that don’t actually pay the Mouse, but I do not care….
You get a password to a account with 6 different profiles like US english French, German,…; ef the Mouse and his want of payment;-)
$1 is almost worth it but there’s not anything worth paying more.
Any state that is a member of the United Nations has voluntarily agreed to follow international law as stated in the UN charter, and they SHOULD all live up to what they have agreed to. The world would be much more peaceful if they did. That’s all that’s ever been implied. No one has ever tried to pretend that there is a panel of Star Wars-like judges that can force members to acquiesce. When UN members fail to live up to their obligations then they should be reminded of those obligations. I don’t know why you have a problem with that.
Those like you that believe nations will “obey” something that has no army or means of force to get them to obey are just polyannish.
Your admonition to me demonstrates just how polyannish you are because if you believe your upset with me will get me to stop laughing at those of you that believe International law is a real enforceable thing, you are so wrong just like you are about the joke you call “international law”
What’s your alternative? Got anything better, ZaSu?
Why do we need an all powerful body dictating what each nation can do?
Why do those on the Left (that is where you are coming from?) get so enamored with dictatorial powers?
We don’t, and that’s not what the United Nations is. The United Nations is a group of states each voluntarily agreeing to adhere to certain rules of conduct towards other states. States can choose to disassociate themselves from the group and/or form other groups if the arrangement is not working for them. States can be expelled from the group if they refuse to follow the rules. It’s similar to my concept of anarchism, but for nations instead of for individuals.
Do you know what “voluntarily” means?
Liberals love their fascism …..
What you describe is not what is occurring and that is not “international law”
The US only “obeys” when it is in their interests to do so.
China does the same.
Russia as well.
Every nation only obeys their agreements with others when they want to.
“Every nation only obeys their agreements with others when they want to.” Yes. That’s what’s actually happening. In other words – voluntarily. No nation has been forced to join the United Nations and any nation may leave the United Nations any time they choose. Again, voluntarily. I know what voluntarily means. States voluntarily assumed an obligation to abide by international law when they voluntarily joined the United Nations.
Is this more a discussion about your dislike for the US government?
There is a heck of a list of nations that have ignored “international law” when it suits them so are you just engaged in Pollyannish musings with me or this just a sideways attempt at America bashing like so many on this site like to do?
I love bashing the United States government as much as the next man, maybe even more than the next man, and they certainly deserve a good bashing, but can you cite anything I said in this exchange that would constitute America bashing?
So you are mindless bashing the US (your entire thread has the stink of bashing those who do not put the efing UN on a pedistal.) and dressing it up with your silly UN musings. What a childish hobby you have.
I postulated the International law is not real rather just a pollyannish idea and you babble about voluntary joining in as if voluntarily obeying is “law” and if a nation like the US does not acquiesce to this voluntary organization they breaking a law as a bad country would do.
What a Pollyannish world you live in and demand others join you in your fantacy while you hate on those that don’t obey your fantasy.
ZaSu, you are spewing out clueless nonsense about something that you clearly don’t want to understand. I’ll just leave it at that.
Good
Your Pollyannish musings about mythical international law is just laughable.
Why don’t you find a thread to get involved with that you can straight forward US bash? You really look foolish telling everyone how swell the UN is and how we must follow their dictates .
I notice that you never actually address what I say or state any objections you have to any elements of international law. Very revealing. Go ahead and laugh. Fools often laugh at things they don’t understand.
International law is just a catchall phrase that describes various organizations we and other nations belong to and those organizations rules.
The problem with that is nations only follow the rules when they want to and short of war there is no means of enforcement.
To believe it is anything thing more than that, is your fictional world of fantasy.
I honestly can not take anyone seriously who believe international law is more that that.
Not those like you who only get upset when the US does not follow “international law” when the Chinese Russia, India, Saudis…… do not either when it suits them but Johny fails to get exercised when they do it.
That is why I do not take you seriously kiddo.
You obviously haven’t listened to a word I’ve said. And you’re just making it up as you go. That’s why your comments are not worth taking seriously.
Colon, I have yet to take you seriously.
I couldn’t care less who or what you take seriously.
That is what you tell everyone.
Why the hell did you even reply to me, you fool?
No one takes you seriously so why did you believe I’d be the first one?
You’re hilarious. And impossible to reason with.
You are just a troll so why the ef would I want to converse with you?
Go annoy someone else troll-boy.
You have no reasoning ability if you believe there is something called international law that we are forced to obey.
Without that force no one obeys whenever it is their interests not do so.
You are so obtuse that you don’t understand that.
“I introduced a resolution reasserting that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty does not supersede Congress’s responsibility to declare war or authorize military force before engaging in hostilities,”
…. Rand Paul
he knows that is a toothless resolution but at least gets to pretend that he is a cool guy.
sorry Rand, but you are no Fonzie.
Wouldn’t we have to get rid of the AUMF’s first?
So the yanks are making it clear if a tip pot regime like Ukraine goes all guns blazing with a confrontation with Russia the yanks will refuse to join in as they will become a target as well , so much for one for all , all for one , as everyone knows without the US NATO is a dead duck.
True, but NATO has been dodging the expense of building a strong military every since its inception due to parasitism on the U.S. We are talking about a number of decades here. NATO should have been closed when the USSR crashed! Why wasn’t it? I suspect that some of the European members of NATO wanted to finish off Russia in the future so that the vast resources Russia has could be seized! Do I have proof? No. That would be something no politician would tell anyone outside of the cabal.
What congressional war powers?
If hostilities broke out with the Soviet Union during the cold war
Plan A would have been to try limit the fighting to Europe.
Poles, and Romanians are dreaming that the US would automatically come to their aid today.
The US will not destroy the world and themselves to avenge a nuclear strike on Warsaw or Vilnius.
Even a strike on London will not provoke a response as long as the US
does not suffer a nuclear strike.
The bill is just fancy-looking defective toilet paper. The evil U.S. government will do whatever it takes to keep up the annual record profits for the MIC and their ruling class oligarchical owners!
I do appreciate the efforts that those folks are making, but I fear it will take bloodshed on our part to stop this bipartisan madness!!!!