Did you like Ron Paul's answer to "Does the President need Congress's approval to bomb Iran?"

Question

"Read the Constitution".

Yes, it would be nice if someone in Washington would read the Constitution, and remember that only Congress can declare war. Congress doesn't "approve" the President's wishes. The President executes Congress's wishes.

Here's the thing, PNAC. That's why he's electable! LMAO!!!!

That's right, Lisa. Lawyers are always great for figuring how to violate the Constitution. Just look at Bush and Cheney's lawyers...

ncrawler, most people would say that the Constitution is what matters, not whatever someone says "the national consensus" is.

Answer 1

What a great answer. The authors of the Constitution endowed congress with the power to declare war for a reason. Once war is declared, Article II, Section 2, authorizes the president, as the Commander in Chief, to execute the war. But the Constitution does not authorize the president to declare war. James Madison wrote in 1793 about the "fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature." At the constitutional convention, George Mason of Virginia stated that the President "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to decide on war. The framers clearly did not want just one man to put the country at war. Thank heavens that our current crop of legislators feels differently, and voted to bypass the Constitution and hand that power over to Bush! Political expediency and plausible deniability should always trump the notion of checks and balances! Why a single representative or senator that voted to pervert our Constitution in such a manner is still in office baffles me.

Answer 2

Every President including your beloved Clinton has bombed strategic military targets without congressional approval and have done so constitutionally. Bombing a specific target or targets is not declaring war and that is where the President needs to get the approval of congress. Regardless of how you want to look at it launching a few missles or bombs and actually declaring war are two different things. Also, don't forget the President has a constitutional obligation to protect this country and it's people and if congress if full of a bunch of wimps afarid of war then the President must do what is necessary. I will also bet when we have someone weak like Hillary and she decides we need to attack Iran and she can't get congressional approval and we get attacked especially with a nuke you will be one of the first to cry about how the President didn't do what was necessary to protect the American people. As far as Ron Paul I don't like him at all and right or wrong don't like anything he has to say, the guy has no chance and never did of getting the nomination, not to mention if he did it would help Hillary win. He needs to drop out and stop collecting money for a failed campaign.

Answer 3

interior the 1st place, Obama did not deliver troops into Libya. extra to the element, below the conflict Powers Act, a president has the authority to take protection rigidity action without searching for Congressional acclaim for ninety days. The provisions of the conflict Powers Act have been vetted by potential of the U.S.. Obama slayed interior of those rules -- nicely interior of them, in actuality. that's not a real bill -- it truly is grandstanding by potential of Ron Paul and multiple of the extra asinine individuals of the Tea social gathering.

Answer 4

I agree that the President cannot declare war, but Congress' powers do not supercede the President's. Perhaps you should read the Constitution, especially the part that says that the President is the Commander in Chief of the American Military.

Answer 5

Skirting your question a little bit, back to Iraq, President
Bush did get approval from the Congress. I remember
Hillary was one who signed on for this action. Then when
she heard there was a problem over there, she changed her
mind and tried to say she didn't okay war, but it's in the book
that she did (just more flip-flopping). Can we trust her any
more than George Bush? I think not. Ron Paul is not a
Republican, but a third party candidate who knew he did not
have a chance if he didn't run on one of the partys in the two-
party system. I think his chances are zero.

Answer 6

I do not agree. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does NOT need presidential approval before moving troops and attacking on foreign soil. For instance, there are almost always troop movements and skirmishes before war is declared. For instance, there was quite a bit of action before the Mexican-American War.

His interpretation of the Constitution has NEVER been the national consensus, which is what matters.

Answer 7

THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT EXECUTE CONGRESS'S WISHES!!

He's supposed to execute the wishes of the people.

He is a separate branch of government for a reason.

So Ron Paul would be a congressional puppy?

Answer 8

He should need it. If our founding fathers, would ever have considered how modern people would think of a a situation involving a bunch of troops and weapons being marched into a country, as not a war, only because Congress did not sign off on it, they would have probably defined war.

Answer 9

give it up,he does not have a chance.this will be a repeat of the perot fiasco that got slick willy elected.vote for ron and the witch gets elected!

Answer 10

It would be nice if the others recognized and follow that. But hey, Mitt Romney would just leave it to the lawyers!