Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paul says president needs to get congressional approval before attacking Iran
The Daily Caller ^ | November 12, 2011 | Will Rahn

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.”


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: hardliners; iran; nukes; paul; warmongering
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 next last
To: IMR 4350

“...just who votes for war if the nuke wipes out congress?”

Wishful thinking.


61 posted on 11/13/2011 9:14:37 AM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer) (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

When I dream, I dream big.


62 posted on 11/13/2011 10:31:10 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
In the end, would the military side with the crooked White House or with the people?

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.

63 posted on 11/13/2011 10:34:29 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat
Not only is following the constraints of the Constitution in the best interests of America, I don't think an imperial presidency is in the real interest of Israel either. What if some nut closet neo-Hitler becomes president and uses his power, unfettered by Congress, to the detriment of Israel, a nation which enjoys broad Congressional and public support?
64 posted on 11/13/2011 10:41:59 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Thank you for your reply.

I fear that very much.


65 posted on 11/13/2011 10:47:05 AM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer) (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
I can't say I'm a Pualist. But it's not Paul’s fault that the current conservative generation has abandoned what used to be conservative orthodoxy. The US Constitution was not designed for a global empire under a global emperor
66 posted on 11/13/2011 10:47:05 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: =8 mrrabbit 8=
If defensive preemptive strike was a contradiction in terms, then there would be no such term as self defense.
67 posted on 11/13/2011 10:52:48 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

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.


68 posted on 11/13/2011 11:23:53 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

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.


69 posted on 11/13/2011 11:47:19 AM PST by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350

Are you dense?

Suggest you read up on Orwell as well...

=8-)


70 posted on 11/13/2011 12:31:28 PM PST by =8 mrrabbit 8=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: =8 mrrabbit 8=
If you can't win a debate with your ideas, just name call.

The debate is over, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

71 posted on 11/13/2011 12:45:34 PM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350

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-)


72 posted on 11/13/2011 12:50:39 PM PST by =8 mrrabbit 8=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350
The President doesn’t have to sit there with his thumb up his butt and wait for congress to give him permission to protect the country.

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

73 posted on 11/13/2011 1:07:04 PM PST by MamaTexan (Islam is not a religion.....it's an excuse to behave like a barbarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: =8 mrrabbit 8=
I’m just amazed at how many fellow “conservatives” try to construe the War Powers Act as somehow superceeding the Constitution itself.

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

74 posted on 11/13/2011 1:17:15 PM PST by MamaTexan (Islam is not a religion.....it's an excuse to behave like a barbarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Constitutionalists as loons, anti-Semites, racists, and anarchists

You fail basic logic. Just because the members of one set are members of another set, does not mean that all the members of the first set are members of the second set.

Not all Constitutionalists are loons (I am not, I assume that neither are you). Ron Paul may be (or maybe not) a Constitutionalist - but he is a crazy loon. And he is demonstrably anti-Semitic.
75 posted on 11/13/2011 2:04:49 PM PST by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

The President doesn’t have to allow the US to be attacked because congress refuses to act.


76 posted on 11/13/2011 2:07:42 PM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

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.


77 posted on 11/13/2011 2:47:55 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350
The President doesn’t have to allow the US to be attacked because congress refuses to act.

Please source the Constitutional Article and Section that gives the President such an authority.

78 posted on 11/13/2011 3:22:05 PM PST by MamaTexan (Islam is not a religion.....it's an excuse to behave like a barbarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

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.


79 posted on 11/13/2011 4:17:16 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

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


80 posted on 11/13/2011 4:24:05 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson