Romney all business: We'll have to ask the lawyers

We know what John D and terry think about lawyers. We'll ask them about Iran after their $400 haircut.

A funny story (me thinks) on Romneys Mexican roots:

http://www.sltrib.com//ci_7108791?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com

Why would any president ask "lawyers" about a decision to go to war? Beyond the question of the war's legality under international law - which the U.S. doesn't respect anyway - lawyers would be as useful as a fifth wheel.

Wouldn't it be more useful to ask a military expert like a general as to whether a particular war can be won through military measure? - or whether the enemy belligerent can be dealt with through measures short of war? - or what the long and short term costs might be in men and materiel in order to achieve the political purpose of the war? And, perhaps, wouldn’t it be better to ask other political leaders if the people and their representatives support such action. Lawyers don’t know this stuff.

Romney was just talking into his hat.

You forgot to mention how Ron Paul answered him:

""this talk about going to the lawyers is baffling to me. Open up the constitution and read it"

Only Congress has the right to declare war. But Congress and the President both seem to have forgotten this. As has Romney.

I'm voting for Ron Paul, he's an MD not a lawyer. We've had enough of lawyer presidents. It's time we had a president with a brain and a spine.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Well, Nunu, Abe Lincoln was a lawyer, and he seemed to do pretty good.

Also, gotta agree w/John W. on this one. Darn it.

I thought Republicans didn't like lawyers because all they do is try to sue rich people on behalf of poor people. Maybe he will put together a committee of about 100 of DC's best lawyers and by the time they get their act together the thought of war will be like a brain fart in the perfume section and no one will even know.

Could the Ron Paul people run some ads or something? Could they please refrain from tagging EVERY web page? Their graffiti is not productive.

Romney didn't say he would consult lawyers about whether to go to war, he said he would consult them about whether he had to consult Congress. And Paul was wrong and just made himself look like an idiot. The president doesn't need Congress' permission to perform a military strike, like one that may be needed in Iran. He only needs their permission to officially declare war on a nation. The president can even issue troops into a nation for a set number of days without Congress' approval.

Of course, once your military advisors determined that action was necessary doesn't anyone take some comfort in the fact that a President might consult with a lawyer to determine next steps under the constitution? Or do we really just want a cowboy who will shoot from the hip and sort it out later? I laugh at Chris Mathews who ridicules Bush for being a cowboy on foriegn affairs and now you get a Republican that will actually invite different points of view and seeks the advise of legal experts and he ridicules that too? But we all know Mr. Hardball's bias.

This country is the best in the world because of the rule of law. The rule of law is protected by lawyers and judges. As popular as it is to hate lawyers, the fact is, we need them. Mitt Romney tells the truth. He understands that interpreting the complexities of the Constitution and the executive powers derived therein requires careful analysis and thought, and not shooting from the hip-like we've seen from our current president. Its troubling to think that many Americans still think that the President can make such monumental decisions like going to war without any thought. We should be rejoicing that we have a candidate like Mitt who can and will think before he acts.

Being a lawyer has nothing to do with this. It is simply a matter of following the constitution, and Ron Paul nailed this one.

If B.J Clinton didn't talk to his lawyers and get the WRONG advice....Osama would have been dead during B.J's do nothing on terrorism 8 year term....and probably no 9/11 where 3000 innocent Americans where murdered.

Romney lost alot of support with that answer.

RUDY....RUDY....RUDY!!!!

Paulo

Mitt needs to talk to his LAWYERS to see if the president needs Congressional approval for a military strike against Iran?

WOW

This isnt a matter of arbitrary "choice" like whether you'll appear for a photo-op in your black windbreaker or not.

This is a CRUCIAL check on the executive branch insisted upon by the Constitution. Its not for fun or for tree-hugging anti-war pacifists to take refuge beneath...IT IS THE WAY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SOUGHT TO GUARANTEE THAT ONE MAN CAN NEVER TAKE THIS COUNTRY INTO A WAR.

Apparently only Ron Paul understands that...yes, Democrats included (with the exception of Kucinich and Gravel- whose honesty I admire but whose quasi-socialism I cant quite get behind).

I know who gets my vote.

"I think I'm probably the only guy on the stage whospent most of his career in the business world,'' he said. "I understand how the economy works."

Not the only flip-flopper though. Loser! p.s. insert mindless John D rant here----------

Romney is such a loser. Bring on grandpa Fred or cell phone Rudy.

Even Ron Paul went on to say that there were certain exceptions if it times sensitive. I for one am not sure what legally qualifies. Don't you think we could use a President who is at least Cautious about doing something illegal? He had the best answer of them all.

"Beyond the question of the war's legality under international law"
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! Is it legal or not to act unilaterally? Matthews didn't give enough specifics to make that determination. Why in the world would you potentially commit treason and war crimes without checking with your Attorney General?

I think Romney's comments about consulting lawyers was very refreshing. For the last two terms we've had a president who has started to trample over our personal freedoms. I am tired of a president who "shoots from the hip". I welcome a more measured, responsible, and business-like president who will bring stability back to the office.

Interesting, overall Romney showed a strong understanding of the issues and how to deal with them. I thought the lawyer comment was weak, but one weak comment out of a pretty strong night for Romney seems rather ridiculous for the Swamp to focus on. But then objectivity and fairness are not the aspirations of most Swamp reporters.

I believe Mitt Romney's comment about consulting with his lawyers was a reassurance to the American people that he would not violate U.S. or international law.

We are in a time where the spoken criticism of the Bush administrations misuse of power and the possible misuse of power of yet another Clinton administration is on the minds of the American people.

I think only an idiot would interpret his comment as a lack of his knowledge of the constitution.

This is not about lawyers, it's about Mitt Romney not knowing one of the most important features of our American Constitution - that only Congress can declare war.

W and Cheney knew it but ignored it, and LBJ knew it and ignored it as well when he wanted to launch a major escalation of our invasion of Vietnam and directly attack North Vietnam.

We don't need another President who ignores this essential part of the Constitution, and we certainly don't want a moron who has no clue what's in the Constitution that he will have to swear to uphold in the awful event that he might be elected President.

Romney's statement is just one of many reasons why this joker, who believes in his magic underwear and that he will rise to Godhood upon his death, should NEVER be elected to any important political office in America.

Maybe Romney the Flip-Flopper could talk to Gen. Shinseki before invading Iran, since Shinseki was 100% correct when he told Shrub we'd need several hundred thousand troops to be a success in Iraq. And for telling the truth Shrub, Cheney & Rumsfeld fired him.

To: Tired of the Ron Paul spammers - don't be scared of the message a true president candidate brings. We all know people like you are hired by the Neo-Cons to say that anyone who does not support the idiots like Romney and the all I can say is I am the 911 mayor are running scared of Ron Paul. - Read the constitution :)

You people use Clinton insults everytime you respond to any question. Stop, Clinton is not the President and that is the past. This is one of the reasons that the Republican party is going down the tubes, coupled with a lot of hateful talk. I think the bigger question that you should be asking is, "will you try to overreach your powers as Bush has and send this country down the path to a dictatorship"?

Congress is one part of three CO-EQUAL branches. That is in the Constitution and Ron Paul is smart enough to know that....what about you other Republicans??

weinerdog43 wrote
"Well, Nunu, Abe Lincoln was a lawyer, and he seemed to do pretty good."

Does it really need to be said that Mitt Romney is no Abe Lincoln!? And that it's not 1861?

Even Bush/Chenney consulted their lawyers: in how to go about skirting the constitution. Romney talking to lawyers is not guarrantee that he won't do the same thing. Ron Paul got it right. No amount of lawyerning amounts to reading the clear word of the constitution.

Paulo wrote: "If B.J Clinton didn't talk to his lawyers and get the WRONG advice....Osama would have been dead during B.J's do nothing on terrorism 8 year term....and probably no 9/11 where 3000 innocent Americans where murdered."

This is pathetic. If neo-con idiots hadn't monopolized Clinton's time with a vitriolic pointless impeachment, perhaps he could have spent his last two years working instead of defending himself.

every time the flip flopping pretty boy mormon says something stupid like that i like to picture he and his wife sitting around in their silly mormon underwear

To nunu and weinerdog -- The fact that Ron Paul is a doctor and most of the rest of 'em are lawyers is irrelevant.

What bothers me is that Romney's "lawyer" comment to me implies "let the lawyers find the loopholes and then use them to justify NOT DECLARING WAR.

Declaring war is not anachronistic. The constitution included this provision to make it DIFFICULT to wage war, and they did this for a reason. Why was Congress too cowardly to declare war in 2003? Because they knew people didn't want WAR.

Nowadays, we certainly call it a WAR in Iraq... but it's too late. If Congress is forced to declare WAR on Iran, rather than "military operations," perhaps they'll think twice about what's really in the best interest of our country.

Yah, that was a strange answer. The Constitution clearly states only Congress can declare WAR.

But, the President has something like 90 days to use the military. . .

But, then again, we have a Supreme Court that has been rubber stamping against Constitution Principles.

At the end of the day, we cannot have a one party Executiv with a one party dominated Congress, and a one party dominated Supreme Court. We'll already seen the results: Rubber stamping!

It is unbalanced and dangerous to this country.

But then objectivity and fairness are not the aspirations of most Swamp reporters.

Posted by: John D | October 10, 2007 8:58 AM

Cry baby. John D king of all whiners. Romney came off as a calculating robot. Rudy was the exploiter of 911. Grandpa Fred came of as, well baffled? Ron Paul seemed just a wee bit on the CRAZY SIDE. Other than that the GOP is in good hands. p.s. John if you don't like the Tribune then stop reading it. Nobody will miss you.

When I was watching Mr. Pinstripes give his answer about consulting lawyers about going to war, I was reminded of this dusty anachronism -- The Constitution -- and wanted to SCREAM at the TV set, "Governor, what does this mean: "Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . . To declare war.""?????

I am surprised to see any comments on this story. Who cares what Mitt would do or any republican would do if elected. That is like asking some one what they would do if they won $20 billion dollars. It isn't going to happen. Hell will freeze over before a Republican is elected in 2008. Also, since when do voters reward failure? The republican candidates all look the same, sound the same and divide the country the same. People need to ask themselves, "Are you a Republican or an American?"

get them a burka.
go to www.zarinas.com

Romney's comments did come across as lacking understanding of basic civics. One owuld presume that a candidate for president would be aware that only Congress can grant war powers. I could care less about his religion, but I care very much about his flip-flopping and lack of detail on the powers of the presdidency. It seems the right has little to offer in 2008.

...and Romney's attorneys would check with Halliburton and the rest of the "defense" contractors to see if they could handle another TRILLION dollar income source.

in response to REPUGNANT comments above, "since when do voters reward failure?" - ANSWER: every election where a republican or a democrat wins.

it's a monopolized process, US voters have no choice but to reward failure.

What an idiot

Romney comes across like a slimy used-car salesman. He looks great, but he's vapid.

Ron Paul makes him and the rest of 'em look like shallow politicians, full of slogans and platitudes.

When Romney states "you sit down with your attorneys," isn't he really talking about Congress, since the majority are lawyers.

A simple "yes" would suffice.

Another would be that decisions like bombimg Iran would need to be discussed at many levels, Congress, international allies, and many levels of intelligence and military
advisaries. Then, the only decision regarding approval is whether there is an immediate threat. Otherwise, authorization for an act of war would reguire congressional approval. Lawyers? Please!
Romney's out! Guarantee it!

Romney was taking a page from George W. Bush. Check with the lawyers to figure out how you can get around the Constitution, and start an illegal war. Ron Paul was the only sane person in the Republican debate last night. Bush also claimed to have business credentials and he led one of the most incompetent White House's in U.S. history. Romney doesn't sound like he would be much better. All he seems to be good at is creating sound bites attacking Hillary Clinton.

If he could not get a consensus from his attorneys, Romney stated he would consult the Mormon's magic underwear for guidance on Iran.

Well, that's what I get for attempting poorly written snark. The Paul minions don't read the 2nd sentence.

Again, for the slow: I agree w/John W. There is no need for lawyers in the fact situation given. The president should seek the counsel of his military and State Dept. experts. Willard was waffling.

Ron Paul needs to leave the Repub. party and join the Democrats. I may not agree with him on everything, but at least he is sane. That's a lot more than I can say for the rest of that field.

First and foremost, Mitt Romney in addition to being a graduate of Harvard Business School is also a graduate of HARVARD LAW SCHOOL!

One would think that he might have the legal acumen to know what the Constitution says and what is legal and what is illegal. Given that his idea of what right and wrong are depend on which one raises his poll number, I'm not surprised. It's a good thing he decided to go into business and not law.

Maybe it’s about time a CEO business executive run the country since politicians, especially career ones, always seem to put us in deep “doo doo”. Business executives would also do the people a favor in at least respecting the law, instead of being “the law” like their counterparts.

Romney is unelectable in a general election. The latest polls show that 57% will never vote for him.

Business executives would also do the people a favor in at least respecting the law, instead of being “the law” like their counterparts.

Posted by: dan | October 10, 2007 5:23 PM

In light of all of the financial malfeasance that has surfaced over the last 25 years, I would be interested to know what makes you think this? Business people are more trustworthy than politicians? Why? Seems to me business and politics service each other(fascism?), and the skills involved in rising to the top in either field can be quite similar.

Exhibit A is our current president, a "businessman" and MBA, whose oil businesses were "floundering" by his own account when he was running in 2000. This man has done just what I would expect him to do: serve business in every way imaginable while throwing the very occasional crumb to the masses.

Besides, Romney IS a politician, and a particularly swarmy one, in my opinion.

His most recent job was Governer of Massachusetts.

Romney is very electable in the general election. History shows a radical change in electability polls between this time and the primaries.

Romney's a smart guy, and America needs him.

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 as to 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!

Positives and negatives for Romney:
(+)I read recently that the pentagon employes 10,000 attorneys. Maybe Romney was on to something regarding how to start a war.

(-)GWB has an MBA. Transferring his business background to running America did nothing to elevate us as a nation. The tax cuts during a military invasion was a dead give away. I don't think GWB understands the concept of guns or butter- he thought it was guns AND butter. Hopefully Romney knows the difference.

What is so absurd about letting people know about Ron Paul's response to read the Constitution. That document alone protects the people and we are destroying it year after year.

Wake up people.

Funny, I didn't see one single lawyer on the battlefield.

The chicago tribune is a joke. They're more the theonion.com. They should change their name to the chicago'slant'bune.

"Romney didn't say he would consult lawyers about whether to go to war, he said he would consult them about whether he had to consult Congress. And Paul was wrong and just made himself look like an idiot. The president doesn't need Congress' permission to perform a military strike, like one that may be needed in Iran"

Um, Joe Antley military attack on Iran is not even a premptive strike. It is an utter declaration of war. Download the U.S. Constitution and read it. Congress has the right to declare war, the president must consult congress and get sufficient votes. If president had the power to wage war he would not be a president in a democratic sense, instead he would be more like a tyrant. I guess you are very eager to fight in bush's wars. Please do not live in ignorance isn't the Constitution the supreme law of the land?

Dear "Tired of the Ron Paul spammers"

You know what I'm tired of? People like you that call Ron Paul supporters "spammers". Go to any Ron Paul event and you'll see, we are not spam.

Nunu added what I would say is a very important, very valid point. The only person who answered the question in a respectable manner was Ron Paul. I think it's significant.

You want to label all Ron Paul support as "spam", then shame on you for being as close-minded, accusatory, and childish.

How about asking the American people - um, your bosses?

This is what we need, another "decider". Weak.

@Larry: Business people don't always know how to run government effectively, especially the closer to the top they come from.

We have a "business leader" mayor in Jax, FL...and he's running this city into the ground.

I understand Ron Paul's appeal for respecting the constraints imposed on the executive branch by the Constitution. I agree with Dr. Paul; those constraints are supremely important.

But Gov. Romney's answer is consistent with that concern: if you really respect the constitutional constraints, you would need a lawyer to determine what they are. It's certainly not as easy as reading the Constitution, since the Constitution authorizes the President, in some situations, to act absent congressional authorization (pursuant to Article II) and in other situations requires congressional approval (pursuant to Article III). Where the line is drawn is difficult to determine. You need a lawyer.

More importantly: I have a problem with Dr. Paul acting as though Gov. Romney's answer was wrong. It so clearly was correct. I suppose the need for candidates to distinguish themselves, or to create a "wedge," is why Dr. Paul said what he said...but the fact remains: what Dr. Paul mislead us by suggesting that you just need to read the Constitution for the answer. I guarantee you, if Dr. Paul were President, he would also consult lawyers to determine how to act constitutionally. Or maybe what he meant is this: "even though I may have the power to act under the Constitution, I would seek congressional authority anyway because I think politically that is the right thing to do." Honestly, that answer has some persuasive power, and I'd respect him more if he said that, rather than trying to attack Gov. Romney for misunderstanding the Constitution. It makes me think either (1) Ron Paul is dumb, which concerns me, or (2) he is purposely misleading, which concerns me more.

Gov. Romney's answer was accurate and true, and I respect that. I'm troubled by people saying they won't vote for him because of his answer. They don't understand much of how anything works, and seem to prefer sort of broad-stroke characterizations and mindlessly dramatic and terribly misleading statements to determine who they vote for. That's how we got President Bush in the first place, and why we are in danger of getting Senator Clinton next. And nothing will change. I'm voting for either Gov. Romney, or Senator Obama for just this reason: these two guys seem to have good judgment, and tend to tell the truth.

YOU DON'T NEED LAWYERS IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION!!!! Romney is too tentative, in my judgement, to run this country.

"thought Republicans didn't like lawyers because all they do is try to sue rich people on behalf of poor people. "

Lawyers who sue hard-working businesses, costing workers, customers, and shareholders a pretty penny, and then *pretending* to help the little guy but actually becoming super-rich is what ticks off Republicans.

Please explain what economic contribution John Edwards made that entitled him to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. There is none. Take from Peter to give to Paul, and take 30% off the top.

I am a shareholder in MOT. a bunch of lawyers are suing the company for millions for mistakes they made 5 years ago and will 'compensate' shareholders for this. Well, where will that money come from? From the company anyway! So shareholders get to pay themselves some compensation, give lawyers 30%, and that makes everybody better?

It's a farce.

For more on the farce, look into the illegal scams a man named Lerach got into. Then look into the politicians he contributed to (hint: Clinton.)

Lawyers are like the Govt: Good as servants, bad as masters.

Let's not put a lawyer in the White House. (yeah, that excludes Edwards, Hillary, Rudy, Thompson, Obama.)

They should go and find a rated service professional from www.nawlist.com

That way they can ensure, what they are getting is quality work.