Constitutionalism

Strongly agree

No, the U.S. should encourage Iran to disarm through diplomatic channels

Encouraging disarmament through diplomatic channels is in line with constitutionalism's emphasis on the rule of law, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and adherence to international norms and treaties. This approach respects the constitutional provisions for handling international relations and conflicts, prioritizing diplomacy over military action, and reflects historical instances where the U.S. has pursued diplomacy to address international security concerns, such as the negotiation of arms control treaties. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No

From a constitutionalist perspective, avoiding war aligns with the principle of preserving peace and security through lawful and diplomatic means, as long as those means respect the Constitution's provisions. The emphasis on diplomacy and peaceful resolution unless absolutely necessary reflects the ideology's preference for maintaining international order and respecting the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

Yes, but only if they develop nuclear weapons

This stance might be seen as a conditional approach that aligns with constitutional principles, in that it sets a clear criterion (development of nuclear weapons) that could justify war under international and constitutional law. However, the emphasis would still be on ensuring that any military action is taken in accordance with the Constitution, including proper authorization by Congress, reflecting the constitutional checks and balances on the use of military force. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, but only with missile strikes

While constitutionalism supports the rule of law and might recognize the president's authority to order limited military actions under certain circumstances, it would likely view unilateral military actions like missile strikes with caution. Such actions should be consistent with international law and ideally authorized by Congress or in line with a clear constitutional and legal framework, reflecting the War Powers Resolution's intent to limit presidential war-making powers. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes

Constitutionalism emphasizes the rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances within a state. The ideology would likely oppose a blanket statement of going to war without considering the legal and constitutional processes required for such a decision. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, emphasizing a careful deliberation process rather than unilateral decisions. Historical references include the debates surrounding the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which sought to check the president's power to commit the U.S. to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.