Mitt Romney Goes All Alberto Gonzales on the Constitution

Call it the Alberto Gonzales approach to the system of checks and balances.

Asked whether he would obey the Constitution and consult Congress before sending US troops into combat, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney says he would consult his lawyers first.

Just as President Bush turned to Gonzales for legal opinions that the disgraced former White House counsel and Attorney General wrote with the purpose of absolving the commander-in-chief of any duty to uphold the Constitution, so Romney says that he would take his cue from contemporary counselors rather than the Founders of the American experiment.

The question in Tuesday's Republican presidential debate in Michigan came from MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who asked, "Governor 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 responded, "You sit down with your attorneys and (they) 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 to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress..."

Matthews interjected: "Did (President Bush) need (a go-ahead from Congress)?"

"You know," Romney replied, "we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do."

Most of the other GOP contenders paid at least a measure of lip service to Constitutional niceties, with Arizona Senator John McCain and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson displaying relative respect for the separation of powers while former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee adopted the mad-bomber line.

When all was said and done, however, only Texas Congressman Ron Paul actually challenged Romney's disregard of the essential document.

Matthews asked, "Congressman Paul, do you believe the President needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?"

"Absolutely," said Paul, who in 2002 was one of six House Republicans to vote against authorizing Bush to attack Iraq. "This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war."

Paul went on to dismiss the whole notion that Iran poses a threat to the US. "The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There's no way. This is just... war propaganda, continued war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war not only in Iraq, but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation. It's a road to our financial disaster if we don't read the Constitution once in a while."

Later, Paul would attempt to explain to Rudy Giuliani that the September 11, 2001, attacks were carried out by terrorists, rather than a foreign government. When the former New York mayor again attempted to use the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as justification for preemptive attacks on sovereign states, Paul explained with regard to September 11: "That was no country. That was 19 thugs. That had nothing to do with a country."

Giuliani wasn't having any of it. "So imminent attack is a possibility, and we should be ready for it," the Republican front runner ranted, before declaring that "we have to be willing to use a military option" against Iran.

That dust-up may explain one of the more intriguing exchanges of Tuesday night's debate.

"Congressman Paul," moderator Matthews asked, "do you promise to support the nominee of the Republican Party next year?"

"Not right now I don't," Paul replied. "Not unless they're willing to end the war and bring our troops home. And not unless they are willing to look at the excess in spending. No, I'm not going to support them if they continue down the path that has taken our party down the tubes."

Comments (10)

1. go get 'em, dr. paul.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/10/2007 @ 12:51am

2. Ron Paul certainly appears stronger on foreign policy than any other candidate, including the Democrat "frontrunners".

   Yeah. Too bad his domestic agenda is so wacko. Maybe President Kucinich could make Ron Paul Secretary of State... or Secretary of Defense. We can dream, can't we?

   Posted by siegeljd at 10/10/2007 @ 03:51am

3. He AGREED with Ron Paul, how do you not get that? Matthews didn't include enough details in his hypothetical to say for certain if it would be a legal action, not only under the constitution, but under international law. Is this nuclear facility a misssile pointed at Israel with people scurrying off the launch pad, or is it a uranium depository? Mitt Romney is the only one on the stage who had ANY respect for US and international law. Bush doesn't care about the law, that is his problem! How do you not see this?

   Posted by Nerdalert at 10/10/2007 @ 04:57am

4. Romney is a mimbo.

   Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 10:08am

5. Ron Pauls definitely has it right about the war. I guess he's the last breath of reason the Republican party has...

   Posted by calvin83 at 10/10/2007 @ 10:26am

6. Ron Paul's domestic agenda is not wacko. He wants to abolish the income tax so you can keep ALL your money. Because it is, after all your money that you earned. No more IRS goones threatening to audit you and/or throw you in jail if they disagree with you. No more government spying on our financial records. etc.

   The primery way he's oging to abolish the income tax is from overseas spending. But he also recently mentioned that he'd cut the presidents salary in half.

   Ron Paul wants freedom. That's all. He doesn't want to run your life. He wants you to run your life.

   Tracy

   Posted by skyorbit at 10/10/2007 @ 2:54pm

7. Ron Paul and Mike Gravel should run together. They're both in favor of br inging the troops home [econlog.econlib.org], abolishing the income tax and securing the borders. They're also the only economically [econlog.econlib.org] literate candidates.

   Posted by TGGP at 10/10/2007 @ 6:16pm

8. To my mind, it is no different for matters related to war or peace!

   Ron Paul's wonderfully consistent plea to "read the Constitution" notwithstanding, all of this opportunistic posturing, from both the media and candidates alike, about what a given candidate might, or might not do, in the future about Iran is both morally and practically irrelevant in the extreme.

   Frankly, I, for one, could not care less!

   What I want to know is what these individuals running for public office stand for in real SpaceTime, here, at this moment, and now, where the body is. That's when and where all creative living takes place, not in the future, nor in the past, for that matter.

   Unfortunately, like most Americans, our presidential candidates of today haven't the first clue about when and where they really are, who and what they really are, nor even how or why they truly are.

   Unfortunately, reality and truth seem to hold no interest for any of them.

   What a pathetic attempt at actual being, if not to say a rank suicidal charade, the American experience has become!

   And come 2008 (if the Supreme Court doesn't beat us to it), we are going to put one of these woeful, opportunistic souls in the White House?

   Of course! Having no moral or practical idea of where, when, who, what, how and why we are ourselves as Americans, that is the way we want it to be!

   Rightly or wrongly, as it is consciously, or unconsciously, desired so shall it be!

   It always is!

   Posted by keltonics at 10/10/2007 @ 7:17pm

9. Giuliani says "we have to be willing to use a military option" against Iran.

   This PC talk is not productive. Translated it would be "we have to be willing attack Iran". Then, all except Ron Paul used the phrase "imminent threat". Implying that if they had knowledge Iran had or was developing any nuclear weapon capability the President could "preemptively" attack without Congress' knowledge or approval.

   This constant drum beat for war is getting sickening. Is this third world country really such a threat to us on our soil that we need to consider war? Make no mistake sending even one missile into another country's borders is more than "an act of aggression".

   Posted by Cloud9 at 10/10/2007 @ 9:55pm

10. Ron Paul seems to be the only rational voice at the debates [nyletterpress.wordpress.com], even if no one is listening. Iran is not a threat, Congressional approval is needed for war (even though many presidents seem to like to break the law), and who cares what candidate a candidate would support. Romney can go back to his company and hang out with his lawyers all he wants -- the rest of us [hopefully] are trying to maintain a civilized, law-abiding country here.

    Posted by liberyfriend at 10/11/2007 @ 4:42pm