General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBe prepared to throw this guy under the bus too Re: Syria
Barack Obama, from an interview with Charlie Savage in 2007:
2. 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?)
Answer: 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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress. The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)These people just don't have a grip on what the electorate wants.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Did I miss any?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)What else could it be?
*stage whisper* He could be a...RACIST!
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)USA USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!!!!
City Lights
(25,171 posts)See the difference?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)JI7
(89,247 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)are the President Obama haters....
Pale Blue Dot
(16,831 posts)If not, how are the two different?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)to attack and occupy Iraq,
and the Democrats gave him that permission.
It is called "The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq",
and if you google that, you can find out ALL about it.
Now Obama's attack on Libya in 2011,
THAT was "unilateral".
JI7
(89,247 posts)Pale Blue Dot
(16,831 posts)then I think that's fair game.
GeorgeGist
(25,319 posts)the sacrifice was undeserved.
polichick
(37,152 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)about the word "unilateral" in no way alters the fact that the President has no legal authority to attack Syria, that neither he nor Congress seem to much give a shit about that one way or another, and that their complete disregard for the very rule of law they are sworn to uphold should concern everyone very much.