Ron Paul constitutionally opposed to Libyan no-fly zone

As the G-8 splits on the possible implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya, Texas Rep. Ron Paul continues to make the constitutional argument against it. Paul believes unequivocally that establishing a no-fly zone would constitute an act of war, and makes the point that many experts agree upon, which is that the necessity of committing ground troops would follow.

In a very fluid situation, an aerial blockade probably wouldn't suffice to accomplish ultimate objectives, and NATO has already balked at such a measure, citing the lack of a UN mandate. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has expressed caution about a military intervention, siding with European leaders who oppose Western involvement in a North African war.

Paul stresses Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution in making his point that Congress, not the president, should decide when we go to war. He argues that with our national security not at stake, President Obama should not engage in hostilities.

Besides the very serious issue of U.S. pilots potentially getting shot down, I think Paul's economic rationale for not intervening is very well taken. In the midst of an economic recovery, do we really want to borrow more money from China to fund yet another overseas military operation? I don't think the millions of unemployed U.S. citizens looking for work believe that's a smart investment.