Article 5 and Empire

https://thehill.com/policy/international/3587018-senate-defeats-rand-paul-amendment-to-nato-resolution-clarifying-war-powers/

The US Establishment doesn't want to jeopardize this key tool by allowing it to become a political football. Also this vote and rejection of Paul's amendment must be viewed in light of the Trump presidency and the damage he did to NATO by suggesting Article 5 might be subject to question. Paul's amendment more or less is a pathway to the same argument and uncommitted position and as such not only weakens the treaty but effectively violates the terms Washington already agreed to.

What seems like an attempt to re-empower congress and return the US to constitutional rule is not viewed by the Establishment as legitimate revision or reform but as a threat of regression. The US System has long transcended the restrictions of the US Constitution, a document that in some respects ceased to have direct (let alone its original) meaning after 1865. The nuclear age further changed the equation that with the revival of the Unitary Executive theory. And given the nature of the Cold War and US commitments to that end, the entire European theatre and its military concerns, necessarily (it was argued) fell outside the restrictions and quaint procedures required by US Constitution.

The end of the Cold War did not correct this and if anything the door was shut in absolute terms as the US was quickly placed on a unipolar footing – one further amplified by the 9/11 episode. Paul's largely symbolic attempt might have had a chance in the waning days of the Obama administration or the early days of Trump but it's clear enough the US Praetorians have turned the ship of state back to an imperial course which is also one of war. They're not going to tie their hands and as such Paul's hopeless and naive gesture was met with rebuke.