Iowa Poll: Paul 28, Gingrich 25, Romney 18 (racist newsletter nutball in the lead)

Weekly Standard ^ | 12/22/2011 | Daniel Halper

[Notwithstanding]

Texas Rep. Ron Paul has moved into first place – the fifth candidate to hold that spot since the mid-August Iowa GOP Straw Poll. The data collected between Dec. 8 and 18 suggest that unlike the previous frontrunners, Paul’s support is more solid.

Paul is the first choice of 27.5 percent of 333 likely caucus-goers among the 740 registered Republicans and 200 registered independents contacted by ISU. That’s up from 20.4 percent in an ISU/Gazette/KCRG poll in November. He’s followed closely by former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich whose support increased from 4.8 percent to 25.3 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in at 17.5 percent, up from 16.3.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is the only other candidate to poll in double digits at 11.2 percent – an increase from 7.9 percent a month earlier.

[DugwayDuke]

“With that in mind, Article i, section 8 lists the powers of Congress “to declare war, grant marquee and reprisal and to make rules for the Capture on Land and water” - nothing in this language to meet grants the power of Congress to initiate hostilities - unless in defense of the homeland, and only then with specific and limited power to the executive.”

The power to declare war is a planary power, one with out limit or restriction. When you say that Congress would be acting outside the Constitution were it to initiate hostilities against an entitity except in defense of the homeland (when we have been fired upon), you have placed a restriction on this power not found in the constitution.

Hypothetically, suppose the commander of forces in Hawaii detected the Japanese flotilla on 6 Dec 1941 in close proximity (within or almost withing stiking distance of Hawaii), would you consider him to have the authority under his oath of office to launch a pre-emptive strike against that flotilla without congressional action, ie, a declaration of war?

[ccwman]

In that circumstance then yes,we could attack if there actions are overtly hostile and in proximity to our nation.

To attack Japan wit no flotilla near Hawaii -because they have an excessive carrier strike force and a large imperial Japanese navy - no that is not warranted for a pre-emptive attack. North Korea has not attacked the US. Do we attack them anyway? What the difference between North Korea and Iran?

Ron paul would also advocate attacking the Japanese flotilla, but attacking North Korea because they have nukes wouldn’t be warranted. Even a build-up of troops on the N/S Korea border pre-emptive attack isn’t warranted. Once they cross the line then we unlimber with all effective and overwhelming military firepower.