Romney On Whether He Can Invade Iran Without Congressional Approval: Let The Lawyers Sort It Out

During the CNBC Republican debate tonight, moderator Chris Matthews asked Mitt Romney, "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?" Romney's answer: let the lawyers sort it out.

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 against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...

MATTHEWS: Did he need it?

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, but certainly what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people in the leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.

Comments

[RandyRanson]

Mirror Mirror on the Wall-Romney

Let's see I can bomb Russia, I can bomb China, I can bomb Canada, no Canada's too close, and there may be fallout. Let's see I can bomb someone, hell, give me a map of the world and an empty Coke bottle, now if I spin it and it points to a country any country, I can bomb that one too, and I can wonderfully, let the lawyers work it all out afterwards, as I do with all of my business decisions. Elect me, elect me, make me your new God, I'm going to show America, I can be a better President than George W. Bush. I will bomb, bomb, bomb, the smithereens out of them all. You know, McCain likes bombing too, I'll make him my VP.

Gosh darn, Thompson, can be my Secretary of Defense, and Rudy can be my pet rock. That's it, now I know I'll get elected, they have to vote, for me.

[skyreader7]

Is this a contest to see who is even dumber than Bush?

[TXfemmom]

Obviously, Romney plans on bringing back Yoo, Gonzales, and Goodling, so they can sign anything he wants.

That answer from Romney, should disqualify him from being the nominee or the President.

[DallasNE]

This makes about as much sense as when his father said that he had been brainwashed on Vietnam.

So Romney wants government by attorney. That is just what we had with Alberto Gonzales. I'm not buying into that for even one second.

[Birdman]

I have come to a conclusion back when they were framing the constitution thye were trying to determine hwo muhc power the president shoudl ahve some wnated the president to have none, they wanted the office to be just a figurenhead. I'm beginning to see how they seen how things could get mucked up especailly when you put a crimminal in the whithouse the sky is the limit as to how far they will go. We have pretty much seen how far the currrent one has gone and it ain't over yet. I'm waiting for martial law and suspension of us voting next year.

[Birdman]

Mit you do not knwo the answer to this question? Oh my and you wnat to be president? I think you need to go back to school I think 8th grade gevernemtn should teach you that answer possibly 6th grade. Sheeeeeesh

[zendem1]

Somebody please point out to Shitt Conme that the US Constitution is not just data to be manipulated.

[godlessclif]

Ron Paul did that on Chris Matthews' show, He said
he could not beleive that Romney had to consult a
lawyer when the constitution is clear.

Congress has to declare war. The President is not a dictator. We need to elect more people who believe that.

Patriotism is not about flag lapel pins, it is
about upholding and defending the constitution
which is why the oath of office says that, DUH!

[outnow]

Mitt:

"Double Gitmo!" "If I kill every body in Iran - so what? So sue me!" Is being a moron being a Xtrian?

[FreedomCorpse]

these republican candidates keep making dumb and dumber comments and their bobble-head followers just lap it up like followers of Jim Jones.

[gulopartisan]

Somebody should send this theofascist dipwad a Cliff's Notes version of the Constitution. Or a copy of UUtah law professor (and fellow Mormon, incidentally) Edwin Firmage's *Dogs of War.*

The 2008 GOP slate is a gaggle of morons.

[godlessclif]

http://hnn.us/articles/1076.html

PEACE

The fundamental assumption of the war clause is that peace is desirable and war is abhorrent.

Mr. Firmage is Samuel D. Thurman Professor of Law, Emeritus; Professor of Law University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, Salt Lake City, Utah. He is co-author (with Francis D. Wormuth) of: To Chain the Dog of War (University of Illinois Press, 1989).

"Congress shall declare war and grant letters of Marque and Reprisal." --U.S. Constitution

Just so people don't think you mean the Christopher Walken movie "Dogs of War" about mercenaries.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080641/ (1981 movie) "The dogs of war"

" To Chain the Dog of War:
The War Power of Congress in History and Law"
Is the book!! Great Book!!!!!

[average joe]

Hillary says I don't reply to those kind of question.

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

If she had, and without knowing what she might say, I can state that no matter what she might say wouldn't be as bad as what this Stepford candidate said.

[Sundialsvc4]

One thing that is clear from every one of the "so-called candidates" that are trumping around spending other people's money, is that every single one of them represents ... not only "status quo," but the illusion that "status quo" is inevitable.

It is not.

General of the Army, and President, Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower hit the coffin-nail on the head when he said that what he dubbed "the military-industrial complex" could destroy our republic. As the highest-ranking officer in the United States Army =before= he became President, "Ike" was an expert in what he was talking about.

We do not live in a totalitarian state, although, as "Ike" foresaw, there are plenty of highly-placed and immensely rich people who make a business of war ... and of totalitarianism.

We have the means ... impeachment and expulsion ... to remove criminals from "any civil office" in this government. And the dire circumstances facing this republic can afford no more delay.

One light burns brightly in Christ Church Tower tonight: "one if by land."

Awake! Awake! The enemy is within our gates! The enemy sits in the very hall of the king, and wears his crown.

[jsantiago]

Beautifully said.

[hannitizer]

My God America! This is our new George, our Savior!

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

Actually, Twit....I mean Mitt: Shakespeare said it best - "first, we kill all the lawyers".

[Halibut]

Unfortunately, the Constitution is not as clear on this point as one would hope - myself included. It turns out the framers chose 'declare' over 'make' in this clause. One draft said that the congress shall have the power to 'make law' - that it was stricken in favor of 'declare' is why we've ended up with debate on this clause since G. Washington's time in office, literally. This also is why the congress felt the need to pass the war powers act. Not much of a clarification as a complication.

[Birdman]

OK you can parse th econstituiton anyway you want too, but the abilty to MAKE Laws rests with congress the President Exectutes those laws get it executive branch executes. The judicial branch does, guess what judges those laws. BTW the reason for the war powers act was to keep people who might become president and does not understand what the executive branch is supposed to do. So they passed a law that leaves the abilty to declare war with congress not too hard to understand. Where the grey area lies is what is the defination of war. This has been discussed, debated and discussed more. Some contend that sending the army to shoot others is war, others say it is not. What gets everyone is the definitions of war and other defintions such as you pointed out, although I do not know of OTHER verisons of the constitution at least not valid ones The biggest contention what is war, after all they labeled the Korean war a police action, they never called Vietnam a war either, it was called a conflict and we were there providing training and support nothing more. Yet in both of these thousands of americans died.

[Halibut]

Birdman - there was a typo in my comment where I wrote "make law" instead of "make war" - an interesting typo. . . Anyway, during the Constitutional convention there were many different versions of many different clauses in one of which the power to 'make war' was tossed for the power to 'declare war' - the issue being that the congress was only required to meet once a year and special sessions might take months to organize, therefore hamstringing the president from taking action in response to urgent threats. (Farrand's records details this debate over the power to make vs declare war.)