The Paul File

[joepistole]

Credibility based on the very people someone is challenging. How does that work?

Credibility based on empiricism as opposed to voodoism. Where is your empircal evidence? Oh that is right, you don't have any. All those PHDs out there that have devoted their lives to the study of economics do have evidence and observation to back up their views and opinions. That is something that folks on your end of the spectrum are sorely lacking.

 

[786]

Milton Friedman also was a PhD, he also believed there was 'evidence'. That empiricism said 'everything is fine' until they were caught with their pants down.

 

[joepistole]

Milton Friedman also was a PhD, he also believed there was 'evidence'. That empiricism said 'everything is fine' until they were caught with their pants down.

Friedman was an empiricist. He was a self described Keynesian. He was not against modern economic thinking. I can agree with a lot of what Friedman advocated. In many ways the man was a radical, not because of his economics but rather because of the political implications of his economics(e.g. getting rid of medical licenses). Friedman had some very good ideas. And he could make a case for his positions. Something you have not done.

"Some of his laissez-faire ideas concerning monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation were used by governments, especially during the 1980s. A combination of his monetary theory in regard to credit and Keynes's belief in deficit spending to stimulate growth has influenced economists such as Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve's response to the financial crisis of 2007–10.[14]" Wikipedia

But to say that Friedman was anti Keynesian or against empirical reasoning, is just wrong. Friedman was an interesting economic thinker. While I didn't agree with everything he advocated. He was certianly an interesting and thoughtful thinker.

 

[Tiassa]

Ron Paul Opposes the Constitution. Why?

So he supported the Act to support state's individual laws regarding same sex marriage. He's not 'selecting' anything, he's giving states the right to define marriage as they wish recognizing all of them
So you are right they can't 'pick and choose' which is 'acceptable' thus RP supported the bill so that all state laws were 'acceptable', without picking and choosing.

How marriage is defined 'federally' will have no affect on the states. Leaving it to the states, in essence he protected same-sex marriage from being out-lawed by the federal government, you should be happy

I always adore it when Paul supporters tell me why I should be pleased or supportive. In this case, apparently I should be pleased because same-sex marriage is so controversial that Ron Paul would rather subvert the Constitution of the United States of America.

And this guy wants to be president?

Precisely why he was against Federal Marriage Amendment. But I agree DoMA was bad legislation. Its shaky ground, trying to protect State rights probably was why he voted for it. Is defining marriage itself unconstitutional, I don't know but it would be nice if they didn't. And if you watch RP debate he said basically that Federal Government has no business dealing with marriage. I think he would support a repeal of this bill given that an alternative bill that protects other states right to define marriage as they wish comes into play.

You're pushing a fundamentally dead-end argument in favor of homophobia.

Let us consider it this way:

Let states define marriage however they want.

Question: Is a gay couple married in Massachusetts still married when they get off the plane in Alabama? According to Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, yes.​

At that point, Section 2 of Article IV, and Section 1 of Amendment XIV (Equal Protection Clause) come into play:

• The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. (Article IV.2)

• ... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Amendment XIV.1)​

All of your, or Ron Paul's talk about why I should be happy and what Ron Paul is trying to do overlooks the fact that Ron Paul doesn't actually give a shit about the U.S. Constitution.

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state ....

.... I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.

(Paul)​

If I should be so happy about Rep. Paul's position, why did you deliberately attempt to misrepresent it?

Think of it this way: Ron Paul would secure the states' rights to opt out of the United States Constitution.

And yet he wants to take the presidential oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

(Boldface accent added)​

I don't know, 786, can you think of a better way to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States than allowing the several states to opt out of its authority whenever it suits their aesthetic needs?

Ron Paul is simply unfit to be president.

His supporters do him no kindness when they try to con other people onto the bandwagon.

There are two primary problems with the proposition that Ron Paul will win enough support to be taken seriously as a candidate:

• Ron Paul
• Ron Paul's supporters​

Thank you for demonstrating my point.
____________________

Notes:

The Constitution of the United States of America. 1992. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. October 3, 2011. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

Paul, Ron. "The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea". October 1, 2004. LewRockwell.com. October 3, 2011. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

 

[eyeswideshut]

All of your, or Ron Paul's talk about why I should be happy and what Ron Paul is trying to do overlooks the fact that Ron Paul doesn't actually give a shit about the U.S. Constitution.

Ron Paul is simply unfit to be president.

Are you serious ? Because of this gay marriage issue & constitution, he is unfit for president ? Then tell me, is there candidate in this race who take constitution more seriously than him ? Everybody is crapping on the document, but when Paul does it in this gay marriage issue its something else. Mindboggling.
Lets see what Obama and others have to say about constitution...

(skip to two minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NhcI8Fv_4E

 

[786]

Let us consider it this way:

Let states define marriage however they want.

Question: Is a gay couple married in Massachusetts still married when they get off the plane in Alabama? According to Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, yes.​

At that point, Section 2 of Article IV, and Section 1 of Amendment XIV (Equal Protection Clause) come into play:

• The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. (Article IV.2)​

LMAO... You clearly don't understand this. Alaskans are paid to to be residence of that state, does that mean wherever I move that those 'privileges' must be fulfilled if I were to move to another state?

Recognition of 'legal' status is not part of that. License for a business in the city of Seattle or the State of Washington DOES NOT give you a license to work in the city of New York. For that you have to apply to THEIR LICENSE and meet the requirements there.

Have you heard of a 'marriage license'?

Legal status as determined by the States is not the subject of that Article.

• ... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Amendment XIV.1)

​

You can be gay everywhere. Again you need to step back from your anti-Ron Paul mood to a sensible one.

If I should be so happy about Rep. Paul's position, why did you deliberately attempt to misrepresent it?

When did I misrepresent it.

Think of it this way: Ron Paul would secure the states' rights to opt out of the United States Constitution.

You clearly can't understand the Constitution as you showed above.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Thank you instead.

 

[joepistole]

Are you serious ? Because of this gay marriage issue & constitution, he is unfit for president ? Then tell me, is there candidate in this race who take constitution more seriously than him ? Everybody is crapping on the document, but when Paul does it in this gay marriage issue its something else. Mindboggling.
Lets see what Obama and others have to say about constitution...

(skip to two minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NhcI8Fv_4E

To say that Paul values the Constitution more than any other person is a leap at best. Just because people disagree with you on public policy issues, it does not follow that they do not value the Constitution. This is just more of the insanity on the right intended to divide the country and put money in the pockets of those floating this garbage (e.g Fox News, limbaugh, levin, hannity, etc.).

 

[786]

Friedman was an empiricist. He was a self described Keynesian. He was not against modern economic thinking. I can agree with a lot of what Friedman advocated. In many ways the man was a radical, not because of his economics but rather because of the political implications of his economics(e.g. getting rid of medical licenses). Friedman had some very good ideas. And he could make a case for his positions. Something you have not done.

"Some of his laissez-faire ideas concerning monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation were used by governments, especially during the 1980s. A combination of his monetary theory in regard to credit and Keynes's belief in deficit spending to stimulate growth has influenced economists such as Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve's response to the financial crisis of 2007–10.[14]" Wikipedia

But to say that Friedman was anti Keynesian or against empirical reasoning, is just wrong. Friedman was an interesting economic thinker. While I didn't agree with everything he advocated. He was certianly an interesting and thoughtful thinker.

Friedman's political views were derived from his economic views, not the other way around as you would like to believe. But I really can't convince you on that because its a matter of judging his intentions, which I'm sure you are an expert on. Much like Ron Paul entering politics due to the economic condition of leaving the gold standard.

Anyhow, the discussion has been about the Federal Reserve, I don't care what else you agree with him on as that is all irrelevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL3FT0O4kYg&feature=player_embedded

'My first preference would be to abolish the Federal Reserve'- Milton Friedman

^Why? Because of free market understanding much like Ron Paul, and how Fed interferes in that. Which you clearly I guess don't see.

 

[786]

To say that Paul values the Constitution more than any other person is a leap at best. Just because people disagree with you on public policy issues, it does not follow that they do not value the Constitution. This is just more of the insanity on the right intended to divide the country and put money in the pockets of those floating this garbage (e.g Fox News, limbaugh, levin, hannity, etc.).

Talk about our current President going to war in Libya with great respect for the Constitution (shhhh........*we respect the constitution* *war isn't as important as gay rights* shh.....*we're just here to bash Ron Paul* shhh.......)

 

[joepistole]

Friedman's political views were derived from his economic views, not the other way around as you would like to believe. But I really can't convince you on that because its a matter of judging his intentions, which I'm sure you are an expert on. Much like Ron Paul entering politics due to the economic condition of leaving the gold standard.

You could convince me if you could make a good rational arguement to support your claim. But you cannot.

Anyhow, the discussion has been about the Federal Reserve, I don't care what else you agree with him on as that is all irrelevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL3FT0O4kYg&feature=player_embedded

'My first preference would be to abolish the Federal Reserve'- Milton Friedman

^Why? Because of free market understanding much like Ron Paul, and how Fed interferes in that. Which you clearly I guess don't see.

And here is the part you left out;

"Though opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady, small expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy.[8]"- Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

"Monetarism is a tendency in economic thought that emphasizes the role of governments in controlling the amount of money in circulation. It is the view within monetary economics that variation in the money supply has major influences on national output in the short run and the price level over longer periods and that objectives of monetary policy are best met by targeting the growth rate of the money supply.[1]

Monetarism today is mainly associated with the work of Milton Friedman, who was among the generation of economists to accept Keynesian economics and then criticize it on its own terms. Friedman and Anna Schwartz wrote an influential book, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960, and argued that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." Friedman advocated a central bank policy aimed at keeping the supply and demand for money at equilibrium, as measured by growth in productivity and demand. The former head of the United States Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, is generally regarded as monetarist in his policy orientation. The European Central Bank officially bases its monetary policy on money supply targets." - Wikipedia

 

[786]

You could convince me if you could make a good rational arguement to support your claim. But you cannot.

And here is the part you left out;

Wasn't part of the video was it

"Though opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady, small expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy.[8]"- Wikipedia

Lol... 'small expansion' and 'steady'. How comparable

And why did he even suggest that. Because a constant money supply which is based on nothing (fiat currency) needs to involve that because otherwise it constricts the economy.

Increasing money supply by small amounts becomes a 'sensible policy' because of that.

Its kind of like saying.... you're in a desert the best policy is to try to save up your water. But wouldn't it be better to leave the desert in the first place? He's giving you advice for the system that we have- not encouraging bailouts or massive increases in money supply. Or 0% interest rates.

 

[joepistole]

Talk about our current President going to war in Libya with great respect for the Constitution (shhhh........*we respect the constitution* *war isn't as important as gay rights* shh.....*we're just here to bash Ron Paul* shhh.......)

Show me where it says the president is not the Commander In Chief in the Constitution.

 

[786]

Show me where it says the president is not the Commander In Chief in the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power:....

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

Article 2 Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Being the Commander of Chief is about mobilizing the troops once Congress declares and grants the President the permission. The power to actually 'go to war' is not under the Presidency.

I'm really surprised that your bias is such that you would even argue this.

 

[joepistole]

Article 1 Section 8
​

Being the Commander of Chief is about mobilizing the troops once you're in the conflict. The power to actually 'go to war' is not under the Presidency.

I'm really surprised that your bias is such that you would even argue this.

I suggest you read the Constitution again. So you are saying the Commander In Chief cannot mobilize troops without a declaration of war? Just where is that in the Constitution?

Troops are mobilized all the time for training. And where in the Constitution does it say the POTUS cannot attack or invade other countries without a declaration of war? Oh that is right, it doesn't say that. That is your intrepretation of the document. And intrepretation that is not and has not been shared by the majority of Americans since the creation of the country.

A founding fathers (Jefferson) invaded North Africa without a declaration of war from Congress.

"Declaration of war and naval blockade

"Immediately prior to Jefferson's inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that 'shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.' … In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to 'protect our commerce & chastise their insolence — by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.'"[14] On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, on May 10, 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate.[15] Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli.

In response, "Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was 'unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'" He told Congress: "I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."[14] Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

Enterprise capturing Tripoli
The schooner USS Enterprise defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a fierce but one-sided battle on August 1, 1801.

In 1802, in response to Jefferson's request for authority to deal with the pirates, Congress passed "An act for the Protection of Commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers", authorizing the President to "…employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite… for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas."[16] "The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port."[14]

The U.S Navy went unchallenged on the sea, but still the question remained undecided. Jefferson pressed the issue the following year, with an increase in military force and deployment of many of the Navy's best ships to the region throughout 1802. The USS Argus, Chesapeake, Constellation, Constitution, Enterprise, Intrepid, Philadelphia and Syren all saw service during the war under the overall command of Commodore Edward Preble. Throughout 1803, Preble set up and maintained a blockade of the Barbary ports and executed a campaign of raids and attacks against the cities' fleets." - Wikipedia

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Talk about our current President going to war in Libya with great respect for the Constitution (shhhh........*we respect the constitution* *war isn't as important as gay rights* shh.....*we're just here to bash Ron Paul* shhh.......)

I'm lovin it! I know the president seems to think that because he passed one stupid law DADT, he's some kind of social hero. As one gay guy said "Don't go,
don't kill."

Obama is a hero for giving gays the right to be open fodder on the front lines (now that they know who they are and all). But everyone ignores how he pushes full steam ahead with Bush programs and policies such as the patriot act and the wars plus the Libya thing, bailouts and turning a blind eye to economic fraud.

You making a mistake by focusing on the constitution. Don't mention the constitution because its irrelevant and its been made irrelevant by its own citizens which you can see for yourself in the following thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110218

The constitution is just an old piece of paper in some museum and you should gaze at it in passing like you do the Mona Lisa. That's its role, a document of the before time, the long long ago.

They don't like Ron Paul because he doesn't wear their colors. Its like being in a gang, the fact that the Bloods and the Crips engage in the same behaviour is not what's relevant, what's relevant is what gang color you sport. In this sense it doesn't matter that Obama failed at his mandate, you have to blind yourself to what he actually does and concentrate on what he says and the image he wants to wow you with. Its like Clinton, the dude gets rid of Glass-steagal and sends jobs overseas with NAFTA but you cannot focus on that, because he's wearing the right colors. If a republican does it its bad, if one of your own dogs do its okay. In other words "Its not fascism when we do it". If paul wore their colors then they would excuse his stance on homosexuals or what have you and focus on all of his other qualities instead. Then they would blame the Republicans for how he's being maligned and mistreated and ignored by the press.

 

[786]

I don't want to argue with minor details or 'mobilizing troops'... The FACT:

CONGRESS has power to declare war.

By the way DON'T quote me what people 'did' because they abused the Constitution- shame on them. You must be thinking 'you can't possibly blame the founding fathers'- yes I can. They made mistakes. But the law says it right there...


CONGRESS has power to declare war.

By the way you should read what you quoted:

In response, "Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was 'unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'" He told Congress: "I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."[14] Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

'to go beyond the line of defense' was unconstitutional per Jefferson...

Libya
1. 'defense' wasn't an issue
2. Libya didn't declare war on US
3. Congress wasn't notified
4. Congress didn't give any authorization

These are comparable events?

Oh and as a reminder: CONGRESS has power to declare war.

Or maybe if I quoted your Constitution it'll make more sense:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

--Barack Obama

 

[eyeswideshut]

To say that Paul values the Constitution more than any other person is a leap at best. Just because people disagree with you on public policy issues, it does not follow that they do not value the Constitution. This is just more of the insanity on the right intended to divide the country and put money in the pockets of those floating this garbage (e.g Fox News, limbaugh, levin, hannity, etc.).

Where did I say that Paul values constitution more than any other person ?
The thing is that if one thinks that Paul is unfit for president because he "doesnt give a shit about constitution", its only fair to ask then the guestion that I asked. No ?
Or is it so, that all the runners for presidency are unfit for the office ?

 

[quadraphonics]

CONGRESS has power to declare war.

Congress also has the prerogative to delegate some or all of that power to other branches, and has exercised such. This stuff is all settled, uncontroversial law. The only people who complain about it are wild-eyed libertarian nutjobs who don't actually follow constitutional law at all, but just repeat political talking points littered with cherry-picked, narrow readings of 200-year-old documents.

 

[786]

Congress also has the prerogative to delegate some or all of that power to other branches, and has exercised such. This stuff is all settled, uncontroversial law. The only people who complain about it are wild-eyed libertarian nutjobs who don't actually follow constitutional law at all, but just repeat political talking points littered with cherry-picked, narrow readings of 200-year-old documents.

Apparently Thomas Jefferson agreed it was unconstitutional

Congress does not have the power to delegate its power to other branches of government The fact that they have is exactly why its so sad. Where does the Constitution give power to transfer powers as delegated by the Constitution?

You see there would be a 'contradiction'-

Constitution says- Congress declares war
Congress says- President declares war...

If you say that is okay, then whats the point in the process of amending the Constitution? Why can't Congress just create 'unconstitutional' laws. The fact is, no matter what the Congress passes, it has to agree with the Constitution. The Constitution gives those powers to Congress- they can't 'pass it on' without amending the Constitution. Because each time it has to be the Congress that declares the war. Committee's made by Congress could do it because they are all part of the legislative branch and under the direct control of Congress- so that wouldn't be a transfer of power. But to say the President can do it, that is transferring the power to the Executive branch something that would require an Amendment to avoid conflicting with the Constitution.

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Does the Constitution give power to the Congress to delegate its power to another branch of government? If not, then no. If you say 'yes they can' then you are saying that all the check and balances built into our system can be done away with without bothering with the Constitution- ie making it irrelevant.

Secondly rather than throwing a statement perhaps you would like to show us where and when Congress gave away their power to declare war

 

[Trippy]

Here's what I don't get about this whole nonsensical BS thing about Libya.

As I understad it.

Feb 2011 - The Libyan ambassador to the UN calls for the UN to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, Sarkozy And Cameron both make statements to the effect of supporting this call.
March 2011 - The US Senate passes S.RES.85, which, among other things states:

urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

Note that S.RES.85, although non-binding was passed unanimously on March 3 2011.

So... What then? The Senate expected a no-fly zone to be imposed without US assistance?

Lugar originally had this to say:
"In this broad context, if the Obama administration decides to impose a no-fly zone or take other significant military action in Libya, I believe it should first seek a Congressional debate on a declaration of war under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution,"
Which appears to be the origin of this tired argument, however he also had this to say:
"Clearly, the United States should be engaged with allies on how to oppose the Qaddafi regime and support the aspirations of the Libyan people," said Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) at the start of the committee's Thursday morning hearing on the Middle East. "But given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame in a civil war, the strains on our military, and other factors, I am doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya."

Generally, Lugar's criticism is not that Congress wasn't consulted, but that congress wasn't properly consulted, he believed that there should have been more debate on the issue, at least, according to what he is reported to have said at the time.

There was a meeting, that much is clear:
"...Inside the White House meeting, several lawmakers had questions about the mission but only Lugar outwardly expressed clear opposition to the intervention..."

And the criticisim of the meeting seems to stem from the fact that it was really more of a telling than an asking.

"Rogers said that the administration had been in contact with lawmakers and had kept him up to date, but the communications had been mostly one way.

"I wouldn't call it consultation as much as laying it out," he said."

So then, what do we have?

• US Military intervention was implicitly authorized by S.RES.85 in its call for a no-fly zone to be imposed by the UN, and its urging of the UN to take any action neccessary to protect Libyan civilians, by virtue of its position on the UN security council.
• US Military Action was in response to UN resolution UN 1973.
• The criticism leveled by Lugar was on the basis that he thought it would turn into something more, and he did not think that the debate had been adequate.
• Other criticisms of the consultation were (originally) not that it hadn't happened, but that what had happened was somewhat one way.

I mean, I find myself at something of a loss here - on the back of what I have been able to find, I'm lead to the conclusion that the only way this objection can have any degree of validity, is if Lugar is lying about having attended meetings, and lying about the debate that occured at those meetings, and if the Senate thought that a No Fly Zone would just appear 'As if by magic' without the US having to contribute any military hardware, or do anything more that make a statement that amounted to "We morally oppose Qadaffi, and morally support his removal forth-with".

Source
Source
Source