2007-10-10 05:23:44 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
MATTHEWS:... if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?
MR. ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously, the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress.
MR. MATTHEWS: Did he need it?
MR. ROMNEY: You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do"
From last night's debate
2007-10-10 05:25:08 · update #1
That is scary. For a president to talk to his lawyers and not to congress for a pre-emptive strike is a really scary idea.
In the case of Iraq, congress did give the president to do as he wished. That was a BIG mistake.
Now, Romney is saying he doesn't even need the congress' approval to attack another country.
2007-10-10 05:36:52 · answer #1 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think this grew out of concern by many people that entry into Iraq was illegal and could have been avoided if Bush had asked his AG. Unfortunately his AG was Gonzales, a classic yes man.
Before a president goes to war it wouldn't hurt to find out what the legal steps are, preferably with an intelligent, independent AG.
Then once sure of his legal footing the president could go to Congress.
I don't think he meant for a minute that he would consult his personal attorneys. But for most Republicans, any reference to an attorney is like throwing red meat to his opponents.
They actually like the idea that a president should go off half ****** first and go back later to dot the I's and cross the T's.
Maybe laws are for other people?
2007-10-10 05:31:53 · answer #2 · answered by justa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Soooo....Romney will have lawyers who are well versed in constitutional law to advise him before he takes military action to be sure the action does or does not need congressional approval?
And that's a problem, why?
Does shooting down an in bound bomber need a declaration of war? That's what they were talking about last night.
So, we just let the bomber do it's thing and then we call congress to decide if they are in a mood to declare war after the damage assessment?
Isn't that what Europe did about Kosovo? They just sat around discussing it and the US had to come half way around the world to clean up yet another mess in their yard.
Forgive me but, I don't want to be Europe.
Ron Paul says that he is a constitutional expert. He would not have lawyers, would ignore his discretionary budget and call congress regardless, apparently. I sure hope the attack doesn't come on a Sunday or a Holiday.
I wonder if he ever got around to reading the part that says he needs congressional approval to get the money for everything he wants to do or is he running for King?
2007-10-10 05:37:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's kind of a strange way to answer the question, but I think what he is saying is that he needs to evaluate the threat from Iran in a legal sense to determine if it falls under his authority under the war powers act.
If the threat is determined to imminent enough, he doesn't have to ask congress or anyone else to take military action.
I think JimSock missed the question. I believe they were discussing premptive action by the US, not defense against an attack by Iran.
2007-10-10 10:33:09 · answer #4 · answered by mjmayer188 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm no fan of Romney and I didn't watch the debate, but my guess is he meant he would want to find out the constitutionality of taking the kind of action as it was posed in the question. The way he said it seems awkward but the president consults with experts in a variety of areas. Consulting with experts on the constitution is appropriate.
2007-10-10 05:35:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it shows an adherence to the Bush policy of relying on legal weasel words before taking an action with arms of the government. I don't think that is what he meant to say, but, he did!
2007-10-10 05:39:02 · answer #6 · answered by alphabetsoup2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is disturbing that Republicans just don't understand the US Constitution!
A pretty fundamental requirement for the job I'd say, given that the next President is going to have to swear to uphold it.
I guess it doesn't matter - Dubbya thinks it is just a goddamned piece of paper anyway.............
2007-10-10 05:28:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Bush has proved that the executive can ignore congress. besides, a congress is useless in a bicameral dictatorship.
2007-10-10 05:30:47 · answer #8 · answered by Free Radical 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
This just in...the C in C doesn't need to ask Congress.
2007-10-10 05:26:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
the only reason you need lawyers is when you are looking for ways around the law.
2007-10-10 05:28:42 · answer #10 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋