[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Romney Says He Wouldn't Need Approval of Congress to Attack Iran Appearing with Bob Schieffer on Sunday’s Face the Nation, Republican presidential candidate and “presumptive nominee” Mitt Romney said that if he is elected in November, he would not need congressional approval to start a war with Iran. Specifically, Romney said: I can assure you if I'm president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the president indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable. We cannot survive a course of action which would include a nuclear Iran, and we must be willing to take any and all actions. Republicans, particularly those occupying the conservative corner of that big tent, may question how Romney’s stance differs significantly from that of President Obama, who famously exercised these imagined “war powers” to initiate military action in Yemen, Libya, and likely Syria. In his Six-Month Report of the 2012 War Powers Resolution, President Obama informed Congress that the United States, acting under the ostensible authority of the United Nations, NATO, and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, is currently conducting military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Republic of South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Uganda, Egypt, and Kosovo. American military intervention in every one of these foreign conflicts came about by order of the president without a congressional declaration of war, in direct violation of the separation of powers and enumeration thereof in the Constitution. Apparently, a President Romney would retain his predecessor’s predilection for ignoring the Constitution and usurping powers that are not his. This theory is not some politically motivated assertion by Romney’s rivals or an operative of the Obama reelection campaign. As Daniel Larson explained in the American Conservative: These are not statements that Romney’s critics are putting into his mouth. No one is speculating about what Romney’s position on Iran might be, and no one is imputing views to him that he doesn’t claim to hold. He is telling the public plainly that he believes the United States cannot survive a containment policy directed against Iran. It is fair to conclude from this that Romney is delusional (or is pretending to be delusional) and cannot be entrusted with the responsibilities of the Presidency. Larson continued: Romney obviously does not believe war is a last resort, and he clearly doesn't believe that the Congress has anything to say about attacking Iran. According to Romney, it is something that the president could do tomorrow if he believed it necessary. The Constitution is completely irrelevant to Romney, and so is the consent of the American people expressed through its representatives. No one should have any illusions about how Romney would conduct foreign policy if he is elected. Curiously, it is one of Romney’s newest supporters that once spoke out eloquently and inspiringly against the sort of dictatorial presidency that Romney is promising to perpetuate. On the floor of the Senate, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said: Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the Executive. They were quite concerned that the Executive could become like a king. Many in this body cannot get boots on ground fast enough in a variety of places, from Syria to Libya to Iran. We don't just send boots to war. We send our young Americans to war. Our young men and women, our soldiers, deserve thoughtful debate. Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of and over the authorization of war and over the motives of the war. James Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates. That the Executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the Legislature. Friends of freedom are hopeful that Senator Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney has not cost him his dedication to the Constitution or his opposition to the unconstitutional exercise of “war powers” on the part of the occupant of the White House regardless of the letter after his name. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 63. Romney's notions here are nothing new. All part of unitary executive theory. This is part of why an American president is always dangerous. Few real constraints on their power to go to war. Congress can defund a war. But in a real power struggle between Congress and the executive branch, the president will always hold the upper-hand and will have plenty of ways to keep troops in the field or to use nukes with no consultation at all. Romney could nuke Tehran and get away with it. So could Obama.
#3. To: TooConservative (#2) James Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates. That the Executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the Legislature. So what happened to the above?
#5. To: SJN (#3) So what happened to the above? Only Congress can declare a war. But nothing forbids a president from starting a war and carrying it on for some time without any consultation with Congress. And only Congress, specifically the House, can restrain such wars by defunding them. People need to be aware of exactly what the Constitution does and does not say about war powers and other matters.
#6. To: TooConservative (#5) (Edited) There is nothing in the USCON that states that the POTUS may *start* a war.
#29. To: war (#6) There is nothing in the USCON that states that the POTUS may *start* a war. You supported Obama's attack on Libya didn't you? I may be wrong. I agree with what you stated above.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#29) You supported Obama's attack on Libya didn't you? I may be wrong. *Obama* didn't attack Libya...NATO did...
#35. To: war (#33) *Obama* didn't attack Libya...NATO did... What a cop out. We are part of NATO. Our forces were involved weren't they? So NATO can overrule the constitution. Sometimes you talk a good talk, like what you said earlier. Then you let your liberal partisan ship take over and make silly comments like the above.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#35) What a cop out. We are part of NATO. Our forces were involved weren't they? So NATO can overrule the constitution. NATO was formed via treaty...read Article VI of the USCON...
#43. To: war (#42) Congress still has to declare war. Can you show me the article in the NATO "treaty" that authorizes the Senate to usurp the Houses aughority to declare war? The NATO treaty was set up to defend Europe from the Soviet Union. Not attack Libya. You are just a partisan hack.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#43) Read Article II of the USCON...the armed forces have been called into the service of the US since the mid 19th century. The Congress gave tacit approval to the POTUS initiating military action when it enacted the War Powers Act: (c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. ~~~~ A Treaty, as law, may stand as "specific statutory authorization". The action in Libya was authorized under UN resolution and the member states of the NATO operated under this authorization. The US ratified the UN Charter and is a member of its Security Council. There was nothing unlawful or unconstitutional.
#48. To: war (#46) The Congress gave tacit approval to the POTUS initiating military action when it enacted the War Powers Act: One congress can't give their power away unless they amend the constitution. They didn't. Unconstitutional. Now you are making the argument that because one congress illegally gave their power away. It will now take a congress and senate with a super majority to get it back. Bullshit. You are no constitutionalist. You are a word twister and a partisan hack.
#54. To: A K A Stone (#48) One congress can't give their power away unless they amend the constitution. They didn't give any power away. Giving power away would have been..."This act empowers the POTUS to declare war."
#57. To: war (#54) Why are you afraid to address comment 53?
#61. To: A K A Stone (#57) I'm not afraid of it. Kellog-Briand is still treaty in effect. A) The UN Charter modified it internationally. B) THE US Senate, upon ratification, passed a statement that the US still maintained both the right to self-defense as well as the right to use force against those nations which violated it. C) The treaty was a pact between nations to renunciate war between themselves. Non signatories are not covered by the pact.
#63. To: war (#61) Iran, Iraq,Yugoslavia,
Replies to Comment # 63. Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 1991...and I agree that Iraq's legality was tenuous... Iran committed an act of war on the US in 1978. Of course, the US committed and act of war in Iran in 1954...
End Trace Mode for Comment # 63. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|