Can our country even discuss the issue of which branch should take the country to war?

[Craig234]

Laws - even the constitution - might be things we want to view as 'set in stone', 'bedrock' for the country, but they effectively don't exist if the people who enforce them don't. A law about citizens' rights effectively doesn't exist if a police officer doesn't follow it and punches someone, and the system doesn't enforce the right by punishing them.

There's an important governing rule in our country about acts of war. Should the president, who is Commander in Chief, also have the power to decide when to use the military to start a war, making them more of a dictator, and Congress irrelevant to the issue?

Or should, as the constitution says, Congress be the branch that decides whether the US will commit acts of war, and the president executes the acts Congress orders?

Here's the thing. We can discuss that. But what does it matter what the laws and constitution say, when not only does the president act regardless of them, but Congress does not enforce them, either?

trump just committed an act of war not only without Congressional approval, but without even informing Democrats. A Democrat introduced a bill of impeachment - the country's only remedy to unconstitutional actions - and Congress voted against it, which is a vote to condone the president starting a war as they please - by 344-79.

The next step would be for the American people to unite against Congress's doing that, and plan to vote out the people who did that. But is there such a national discussion, a national plan to enforce the constitution on this? It appears not - making the constitution unenforced. A majority don't seem to care about that.

 

[MamboDervish]

Can our country even discuss the issue of which branch should take the country to war?​

I guess not.

 

[Mycroft]

Laws - even the constitution - might be things we want to view as 'set in stone', 'bedrock' for the country, but they effectively don't exist if the people who enforce them don't. A law about citizens' rights effectively doesn't exist if a police officer doesn't follow it and punches someone, and the system doesn't enforce the right by punishing them.

There's an important governing rule in our country about acts of war. Should the president, who is Commander in Chief, also have the power to decide when to use the military to start a war, making them more of a dictator, and Congress irrelevant to the issue?

Or should, as the constitution says, Congress be the branch that decides whether the US will commit acts of war, and the president executes the acts Congress orders?

Here's the thing. We can discuss that. But what does it matter what the laws and constitution say, when not only does the president act regardless of them, but Congress does not enforce them, either?

trump just committed an act of war not only without Congressional approval, but without even informing Democrats. A Democrat introduced a bill of impeachment - the country's only remedy to unconstitutional actions - and Congress voted against it, which is a vote to condone the president starting a war as they please - by 344-79.

The next step would be for the American people to unite against Congress's doing that, and plan to vote out the people who did that. But is there such a national discussion, a national plan to enforce the constitution on this? It appears not - making the constitution unenforced. A majority don't seem to care about that.

1. Congress gave the President the lawful right to engage in military action WITHOUT their approval. That means Trump did not violate any laws or the Constitution.

2. Trump DID notify Congress of his action...before it happened. There is no requirement that he inform "Democrats".

3. And yes...the American people are free to take action against Congress...but that won't happen until next year. Don't hold your breath.

 

[aociswundumho]

1. Congress gave the President the lawful right to engage in military action WITHOUT their approval. That means Trump did not violate any laws or the Constitution.

Ironically enough, the war powers act was intended to limit the power of the president regarding war, which is why Nixon vetoed it.

Ain't democracy grand?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Can our country even discuss the issue of which branch should take the country to war?​

I guess not.

Only Congress can make a declaration of war. However the President has considerable ability to act without a declaration based on the situation and the urgency at hand.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Ironically enough, the war powers act was intended to limit the power of the president regarding war, which is why Nixon vetoed it.

Ain't democracy grand?

You can't always have the delay and the notification of what's coming in an emergency.

 

[aociswundumho]

You can't always have the delay and the notification of what's coming in an emergency.

The problem is, "it’s an emergency" has been used to justify everything from internment concentration camps to coups.

 

[WisconIndependent]

1. Congress gave the President the lawful right to engage in military action WITHOUT their approval. That means Trump did not violate any laws or the Constitution.

2. Trump DID notify Congress of his action...before it happened. There is no requirement that he inform "Democrats".

3. And yes...the American people are free to take action against Congress...but that won't happen until next year. Don't hold your breath.

Firt, the congress gave the president permission in the case of imminent attack by a foreign country and this situation did not meet that standard. ANd the law says the president has to inform the congress, not just the GOP, the entire congress. And we know that nothing will happen as the GOP is so afraid of Trump, even after he has broken numerous laws and now spent 300 million dollars on a failed attempt, they will just remain the cowards they are presently.

 

[Mycroft]

Firt, the congress gave the president permission in the case of imminent attack by a foreign country and this situation did not meet that standard. ANd the law says the president has to inform the congress, not just the GOP, the entire congress. And we know that nothing will happen as the GOP is so afraid of Trump, even after he has broken numerous laws and now spent 300 million dollars on a failed attempt, they will just remain the cowards they are presently.

"the case of imminent attack by a foreign country" is not a requirement of the War Powers Act.

Trump did notify Congress.

It wasn't a failed attempt.

You got any more bullshit spin and nonsense for me to slap down?

 

[MamboDervish]

Only Congress can make a declaration of war. However the President has considerable ability to act without a declaration based on the situation and the urgency at hand.

Correct. That "considerable ability to act" was granted to give him the power to deal with a direct threat on the US when that is "the urgency at hand". Nobody who knows the current situation believes that the US, our citizens, or our military was under any direct threat from Iran.

At least they weren't before Trump's actions.

 

[markdc]

The problem is, "it’s an emergency" has been used to justify everything from internment concentration camps to coups.

Agreed.

Constitutional limitations and protections will always erode and democracies will always fall because of the desire for power and the nature of human self-interest. The idea that you will have freedom if you support one party and tyranny if you support another is a fiction. In the end, ALL parties and democracies will end in autocracy.

Mark

 

[Craig234]

Constitutional limitations and protections will always erode and democracies will always fall because of the desire for power and the nature of human self-interest. The idea that you will have freedom if you support one party and tyranny if you support another is a fiction. In the end, ALL parties and democracies will end in autocracy.

Wrong, and support for that autocracy. Right-wing delusion.

 

[Girlpower]

Laws - even the constitution - might be things we want to view as 'set in stone', 'bedrock' for the country, but they effectively don't exist if the people who enforce them don't. A law about citizens' rights effectively doesn't exist if a police officer doesn't follow it and punches someone, and the system doesn't enforce the right by punishing them.

There's an important governing rule in our country about acts of war. Should the president, who is Commander in Chief, also have the power to decide when to use the military to start a war, making them more of a dictator, and Congress irrelevant to the issue?

Or should, as the constitution says, Congress be the branch that decides whether the US will commit acts of war, and the president executes the acts Congress orders?

Here's the thing. We can discuss that. But what does it matter what the laws and constitution say, when not only does the president act regardless of them, but Congress does not enforce them, either?

trump just committed an act of war not only without Congressional approval, but without even informing Democrats. A Democrat introduced a bill of impeachment - the country's only remedy to unconstitutional actions - and Congress voted against it, which is a vote to condone the president starting a war as they please - by 344-79.

The next step would be for the American people to unite against Congress's doing that, and plan to vote out the people who did that. But is there such a national discussion, a national plan to enforce the constitution on this? It appears not - making the constitution unenforced. A majority don't seem to care about that.

President's are allowed to take any military action for 60 days before reporting to congress.

This is a congressional law that they decided on.

After that point they can completely shut it down if they like.

Not sure what the issue here is.

 

[Michael Cole]

Correct. That "considerable ability to act" was granted to give him the power to deal with a direct threat on the US when that is "the urgency at hand". Nobody who knows the current situation believes that the US, our citizens, or our military was under any direct threat from Iran.

At least they weren't before Trump's actions.

The pretense was no different than that used to invade Iraq, though Bush at least presented a case before invasion. Trump is scrambling to clean this up post action, with Hegseth giving a presser lambasting the press for not praising Dear Leader.

This looks to me like a case of Trump being Netanyahu's lapdog. Our action may have been an act of war, but since the Iranian response was symbolic only, we can't classify this in the same category as a congressionally declared war.

Trump's actions may or may not have been illegal. The issue here is transparency, which we're not getting.

 

[Girlpower]

The pretense was no different than that used to invade Iraq, though Bush at least presented a case before invasion. Trump is scrambling to clean this up post action, with Hegseth giving a presser lambasting the press for not praising Dear Leader.

This looks to me like a case of Trump being Netanyahu's lapdog. Our action may have been an act of war, but since the Iranian response was symbolic only, we can't classify this in the same category as a congressionally declared war.

Trump's actions may or may not have been illegal. The issue here is transparency, which we're not getting.

There are absolutely no limitations to the president's use of military for 60 days.

He could nuke Cleveland if he wanted to and it would be perfectly legal.

This is a right granted to all presidents who may not have time to convene congress.

 

[Craig234]

President's are allowed to take any military action for 60 days before reporting to congress.

Wrong. Congress grants presidents that power *only* in the case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces". There was no such emergency and attack. You should learn the law better.

 

[Girlpower]

Wrong. Congress grants presidents that power *only* in the case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces". There was no such emergency and attack. You should learn the law better.

You should read the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Act, officially known as the War Powers Resolution, is a federal law passed in 1973 to limit the President's power to commit U.S. armed forces to military action without the consent of Congress. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of sending troops into potential conflict zones and mandates their withdrawal within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes the action.

 

[Michael Cole]

There are absolutely no limitations to the president's use of military for 60 days.

That's false.

He could nuke Cleveland if he wanted to and it would be perfectly legal.

I'm not in the mood for dumb fantasy.

I've been through Cleveland. Decades ago. Declining rust belt city. Do you live there?

We Northern Nevada locals have a connection to Cleveland, somewhat. Billionaire Jeff Jacobs, who redeveloped a blighted section of Cleveland waterfront, moved here 20 years ago and is doing the same for downtown Reno. Great guy. All billionaires aren't evil.

Meet him.

This is a right granted to all presidents who may not have time to convene congress.

Sure. Imagination is powerful.

 

[Girlpower]

That's false.


I'm not in the mood for dumb fantasy.

I've been through Cleveland. Decades ago. Declining rust belt city. Do you live there?

We Northern Nevada locals have a connection to Cleveland, somewhat. Billionaire Jeff Jacobs, who redeveloped a blighted section of Cleveland waterfront, moved here 20 years ago and is doing the same for downtown Reno. Great guy. All billionaires aren't evil.

Meet him.







Sure. Imagination is powerful.

Ok, name a limitation on the president's ability to use force.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Laws - even the constitution - might be things we want to view as 'set in stone', 'bedrock' for the country, but they effectively don't exist if the people who enforce them don't. A law about citizens' rights effectively doesn't exist if a police officer doesn't follow it and punches someone, and the system doesn't enforce the right by punishing them.

There's an important governing rule in our country about acts of war. Should the president, who is Commander in Chief, also have the power to decide when to use the military to start a war, making them more of a dictator, and Congress irrelevant to the issue?

Or should, as the constitution says, Congress be the branch that decides whether the US will commit acts of war, and the president executes the acts Congress orders?

Here's the thing. We can discuss that. But what does it matter what the laws and constitution say, when not only does the president act regardless of them, but Congress does not enforce them, either?

trump just committed an act of war not only without Congressional approval, but without even informing Democrats. A Democrat introduced a bill of impeachment - the country's only remedy to unconstitutional actions - and Congress voted against it, which is a vote to condone the president starting a war as they please - by 344-79.

The next step would be for the American people to unite against Congress's doing that, and plan to vote out the people who did that. But is there such a national discussion, a national plan to enforce the constitution on this? It appears not - making the constitution unenforced. A majority don't seem to care about that.

The op is not based on reality. The president authority to use military force, at least short term. What he/she must do is notify Congress within 48 hours and not keep them deployed more then 60 days without congressional approval. it would be incredibly stupid not to give the commander in chief some leeway. Imagine if an ICBM was headed towards the US. Should the president have to wait for congressional approval to respond?

War Powers Act - 1973, Definition & Purpose

The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escala...

www.history.com

 

[Michael Cole]

Ok, name a limitation on the president's ability to use force.

Going to bed without dinner.

 

[MamboDervish]

There are absolutely no limitations to the president's use of military for 60 days.

This is wrong

He could nuke Cleveland if he wanted to and it would be perfectly legal.

And this is completely off-the-****ing-wall wrong.

This is a right granted to all presidents who may not have time to convene congress.

Inherent in what you've written is the implication that we are under some sort of threat. That is the only circumstance in which "we may not have time to", at the very least, consult with congress. Iran was no imminent threat to the US or our interests until after Trump's bombing raid.

 

[Girlpower]

This is wrong

And this is completely off-the-****ing-wall wrong.

Inherent in what you've written is the implication that we are under some sort of threat. That is the only circumstance in which "we may not have time to", at the very least, consult with congress. Iran was no imminent threat to the US or our interests until after Trump's bombing raid.

Depends on what you define as a threat.

Removing a threat when you have the chance to is also a possibility.

Would it be better for a president to take out a nuke before it is launched or wait until it hits us?

What would you suggest he do?

There does not do be a direct attack to warrant a threat.

 

[MamboDervish]

Depends on what you define as a threat.

Removing a threat when you have the chance to is also a possibility.

Not only has the USA NOT been engaged in any recent hostilities with Iran, our tensions with them have actually eased as we've removed our Army from both their Eastern and Western borders.

Would it be better for a president to take out a nuke before it is launched or wait until it hits us?

There was no threat of it being launched against us, so it's a waste of time to be arguing with false choices.

What would you suggest he do?

Follow the laws, both domestic and international, and engage in diplomacy - just as any sane adult president should do - just as Obama did during his second term in office.

There does not do be a direct attack to warrant a threat.

Trump himself exacerbated that threat when he trashed the multi-lateral agreement we had with our allies and other interested parties.

 

[Craig234]

The War Powers Act, officially known as the War Powers Resolution, is a federal law passed in 1973 to limit the President's power to commit U.S. armed forces to military action without the consent of Congress. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of sending troops into potential conflict zones and mandates their withdrawal within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes the action.

I just quoted the act saying the only time the president is allowed to do that, and this did not meet the law. What part of what I quoted was not clear? You simply ignored what the law says. Like trump.