HERP DERP DERP DERP DERRRRRRRRP
anyway.
Quote:
In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
Barack Obama:The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
[remainder of response snipped]
Hillary Clinton:
The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization.
[remainder of response snipped]
John Edwards:
As I've said many times, we do not need a march to war with Iran. I strongly oppose George Bush's doctrine of "preventive war" and believe that force always should be an option of last resort. I opposed the recent Kyl-Lieberman bill declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which I believed was the first step on the administration attacking Iran. I believe that the 2002 bill authorizing force in Iraq does not in any way authorize the use of force in Iran.
Bill Richardson:
The Constitution assigns to Congress, not to the President, the power to declare war. However, in the case of an imminent threat, when there is no time to go to Congress, the Commander in Chief may, and indeed must, act to protect the United States. Given that the Iranian nuclear program does not pose such an imminent threat, if the President believed it was in the US national interest to attack Iranian nuclear sites, he should seek prior authorization from Congress.
Christopher Dodd:
Only in the case of an imminent threat to the national security of the United States or the national security of its allies would the President have the right to act militarily without Congressional approval. However, he would be bound by provisions of the War Powers Act to notify Congress and get retroactive approval to continue any military action.
Joseph Biden:
[...]
The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. Thus, the President has no authority to use force in Iran unless Iran attacks the United States, or there is an imminent threat of such an attack. The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of force.
John McCain:
Well he doesn't. But if there is an imminent threat, the president has to act in America's security interest. ... He should [go to Congress] absent an imminent threat.
[remainder of response snipped]
Mitt Romney:
A President must always act in the best interests of the United States to protect us against a potential threat, including a nuclear Iran. Naturally, it is always preferable to seek agreement of all – leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world – where those circumstances are available.
Ron Paul:
None.
Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson declined to answer.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-15292.html Dated 01-18-2008, 03:43 PM.
That's why he let France go first.
