Should legislation be passed requiring Congressional approval for an attack on Iran?

issue prior to revisions:

Yes, it is silly we have Congress twice.  I'm going to make that change. 

Must we say "Congress" twice? How about "Should legislation be passed requiring Congressional approval for an attack on Iran?" I think it's obvious who'd be passing the legislation.

Durbin just brought up this resolution in the Senate...

"Affirming that any military action taken against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated."

Ultimately, I think the way we currently word it we still get the evidence produced by the Webb bill, right?

If they're voting to prohibit funds if the President doesn't get approval from Congress, then they must feel that he should come for approval before attacking.

Great and timely issue. I could live with the existing language. But I'd prefer this to track the language of the Webb bill that's actually before the Senate, upon which we're most likely to find specific pf evidence:

"Should Congress prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without specific authorization of Congress?"

Here's the language of the bill:

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAN.

(a) Prohibition- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act, including any Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress enacted in a statute enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

I don't think so either.

So is the current version ready for approval?

I don't think we need "nuclear facility." 

Here's how the question was asked in the GOP debate today:

Do you believe that Congress has to authorize a strategic attack, not an attack on -- during hot pursuit, but a strategic attack on weaponry in Iran -- do you need congressional approval as commander and chief?

Geez, Chris, could you be a bit more coherent?

Later:

Mr. Matthews: Just to bring it up to date on this, the political context -- you know, Mayor, that Hillary Clinton has proposed -- she's co-sponsored legislation to do just this: require the president to come to Congress for any decision to go to attack a nuclear facility in Iran.

That seems more usable.

"Should Congress pass legislation requiring Congressional approval for an attack on a nuclear facility in Iran?"

I don't know if the "nuclear facility" part is key or not.  From re-reading the evidence, seems like no.

At any rate, it was asked of all the GOP candidates so would be good to get it approved and up.

I think the issue is - President Bush can attack Iran if he wants to, but Congress is saying they will try and prohibit funds if he doesn't get their authorization first. 

I think the issue is fine as is.

do we need "Congress" in there the first time?

Should legislation pass  requiring Congressional approval for an attack on Iran?

Adding "Funds" might narrow the issue too much. PF's against this will cite other reasons for opposing military operations in Iran than strictly financial ones.

"Funds" seem to have a place in this.

"Should the use of funds for military operations against Iran require Congressional authorization?"

:-/  Not crazy about that wording.  (Good issue.)

Should congress pass legislatoin prohibiting an attack on Iran without express congressional approval?

USNews

On CNN's Late Edition, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden said, "We are already entangled in two wars. And it seems to me, the administration wants to get us into a third, they ought to come to the Congress and ask for direct authorization."

Here's the scoop...

Senator Clinton Announces Co-Sponsorship of Webb Legislation Prohibiting the Use of Funds for Military Operations In Iran

Reiterates that President Bush Needs Congressional Authorization Before Attacking Iran

Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that she is co-sponsoring legislation introduced by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization (S. 759).

Does President Bush need Congressional authorization to take military action against Iran?

Nice points.  Maybe we should say...

Should Congress pass legislation requiring Congressional approval for military action inside or against Iran? 

I believe the president can make some military moves, but needs congressional approval for a declaration of war. So are we talking about war, or some small scale military action?

There are so many ways we can go about this issue.

#1 There's a debate about whether the president has the authority to authorize military action in Iran without congressional approval

#2 Should congress pass legislation requiring approval?  So there, if Congress is trying to pass a law requiring approval to attack Iran, then really Bush has the authority to do so without approval. Right?

#2 Should Bush authorize an attack without approval?

#3 Will Bush authorize an attack without congressional approval?

I'm dizzy.

Should Congress authorize an attack on Iran?

-Sub issue could be, should the President attack anyway if he wants to?

issue prior to revisions:

Reuters

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday said he likely would support legislation barring a U.S. attack on Iran unless Congress explicitly gave President George W. Bush the green light to do so.

The Nevada Democrat was responding to reporters' questions about an amendment to an upcoming war-funding bill, which could come to the Senate floor later this month. The amendment is being drafted by Sen. James Webb, the Virginia Democrat who won his seat in November largely on a vow to work to end the war in Iraq.

"I would be very, very confident, I have not read this (amendment), but I'm confident, in real generality ... that I can support him," Reid told reporters.

Webb's amendment would prohibit Bush from spending any money on a "unilateral military action in Iran without the express consent of the Congress," the Virginia senator told reporters on Wednesday. He said there would be some exceptions, but did not detail them.

AP

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.

I think that cheapens the debate though.  Does he have the authority is how it's being debated right now? 

i'd ask it as a should question:

Should Pres. use military force in Iran without first obtaining Congressional approval?

-Is a war resolution passed by Congress required for military action against Iran?

issue prior to revisions: