On the recordApril 5, 2011
I rise to oppose the Paul amendment on the President's constitutional authority to order the use of military force. This amendment is flawed because it doesn't allow the President to respond militarily to a completed attack and only allows action to stop an actual or imminent threat to the Nation. The amendment would in effect make it illegal for the President to unilaterally order the use of military force to protect U.S. interests except only in situations that involve preventing an actual threat to the United States or an imminent threat to the United States. Numerous Presidential decisions to order the use of military force over the last 30 years would not meet the standard of the Paul amendment. For example, under the Paul amendment President Ronald Reagan would have acted illegally in 1983 when he unilaterally ordered the invasion of Grenada, which did not involve an ``actual'' or ``imminent'' threat against the United States from Grenada. Similarly President George H.W. Bush would have acted illegally under the Paul amendment when he ordered the 1989 invasion of Panama. President Bush justified the Panama invasion based on protecting the lives of U.S.…





