Posted on 11/13/2011 5:15:53 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
Ron Paul, the outspoken libertarian congressman and Republican presidential candidate from Texas, disagreed with his fellow GOP hopefuls on the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons at the CBS/National Journal debate on Saturday.
While Paul refused to rule out the possibility of war with Iran, he insisted a war would not be worthwhile and that the president should go to Congress before launching any military action.
“The only way you would do that is you would have to go to the Congress,” he said. “We as commander in chief aren’t making the decision to go to war. The old fashioned way, the Constitution, you go to the Congress and find out if our national security is threatened and I’m afraid what’s going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq.”
Paul went on to say that he considered the Iraq War a “tragedy.”
Both former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were far more hawkish in their assessments of the threat posed by Iranian nuclear weapons program. Romney said “crippling sanctions” should be put into effect. If those fail to halt the nation’s weapons progress, however, Romney said military action should be considered because the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran was “unacceptable.”
“We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he said.
Gingrich said would adopt an “absolute strategic program comparable to what President Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher did to the Soviet Union” utilizing every “possible aspect short of war of breaking the [Iranian] regime and bringing it down.” He said the U.S. should also embrace covert operations “to block and disrupt the Iranian program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable.”
Should covert operations and other activities fail, Gingrich said that military action should be considered. “I agree with Governor Romney,” he said. “If in the end despite all of those things, the dictatorship persists, you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break the capacity to have a nuclear weapon.”
“...just who votes for war if the nuke wipes out congress?”
Wishful thinking.
When I dream, I dream big.
I think it would depend on the situation. Some of the things that Clinton and Obama did in the Balkans and Libya with dubious Constitutional sanction shows that the chain of command is very powerful.
Thank you for your reply.
I fear that very much.
Blow it out your you know where. Who the hell do you think you are with your smarmy little threats. I went off of the thread that was presented. As it was presented, Paul is right that the prez shouldn’t be launching attacks without a congressional declaration of war. End of story. Currently, the prez is launching attacks with out a congressional declaration of war. I suppose you take the mclame position on Libya. The Korean war, Vietnam war, invasion of Grenada, etc were all conducted without a declaration of war. You don’t like that take it up with the framers. You and Paul are joint clowns. Get lost.
You obviously didn’t read what I actually wrote, just as you obviously didn’t hear what Perry and Romney actually said last night.
You just made yourself sound like an idiot. I said Paul set up a straw man. IOW, he set up an argument that wasn’t made and then argued against it.
Also, you accused me of making threats. I made no threats. If you think I did, please quote me making threats. If you can’t do that, then you owe me an apology for your false accusation.
Are you dense?
Suggest you read up on Orwell as well...
=8-)
The debate is over, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
You responded with:
“If defensive preemptive strike was a contradiction in terms, then there would be no such term as self defense.”
...when the discussion is about Congress having the power to declare war.
Either you are guilty of “sleight of hand” or you are indeed dense.
Wasn’t an ad-hom...but rather an observation.
=8-)
Yes, the President DOES have to sit with his thumb up his butt unless and until either Congress gives him the go-ahead according to Article I Section 8 or a State requests assistance under Article IV, Section 4.
Thinking a President can take action just because HE thinks it's necessary is absolutely ludicrous.
Anyone who thinks the Office of POTUS has that authority has NO understanding of the Constitution, and no viable reason to call himself a 'conservative'.
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin
Scary, isn't it?
Particularly since even a brief stroll through the history books will quickly dissuade one of such notions.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
The President doesn’t have to allow the US to be attacked because congress refuses to act.
I owe you jack. You are just like the commissars of the old soviet army. Toe the party line, or else. Pound sand comrade, and like I stated before; get lost.
Please source the Constitutional Article and Section that gives the President such an authority.
Cite the section of the constitution where ANYONE in Congress that is not in the reserve component is in the chain of command of ANY SINGLE member of the armed forces. I was in the army and National Guard for 28 years and NO member of Congress was EVER in my chain of command.
Waging war is a joint responsibility of the executive and congress. Congress can declare and fund it. The POTUS is the only one who can order the troops to march. The founders never intended to have hundreds of members of Congress endlessly debating a situation which might require a rapid response. The declaration of war primarily triggers some specific diplomatic and legal realities and alterations. It was NEVER intended to hobble a reasoned response by a POTUS to an imminent situation. That is why he has near plenary power over the actions of the armed forces. If the congress wishes to halt his action they they must find the courage to deund the campaign.
Its just unfortunate that a Marxist usurper without an ounce of fidelity to the US is illegally occupying this vital job.
The War Powers Act is a violation of the seperation of powers principle. It actually allows Congress to vote on ordering the troops off the battlefield. The POTUS is the sole C-in-C under Article II, Sec 2.
Cite the section of the constitution where ANYONE in Congress that is not in the reserve component is in the chain of command of ANY SINGLE member of the armed forces. I was in the army and National Guard for 28 years and NO member of Congress was EVER in my chain of command.
Waging war is a joint responsibility of the executive and congress. Congress can declare and fund it. The POTUS is the only one who can order the troops to march. The founders never intended to have hundreds of members of Congress endlessly debating a situation which might require a rapid response. The declaration of war primarily triggers some specific diplomatic and legal realities and alterations. It was NEVER intended to hobble a reasoned response by a POTUS to an imminent situation. That is why he has near plenary power over the actions of the armed forces. If the congress wishes to halt his action they they must find the courage to deund the campaign.
Its just unfortunate that a Marxist usurper without an ounce of fidelity to the US is illegally occupying this vital job
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.