Ignorant Democrat Representative Claims Trump's Iran Airstrikes Are Grounds For Impeachment

[Linc]

Trump did NOT "launch an offensive war" against any country. The war had already been established. Trump joined to help our ally, Israel.

This would be known as the MOTHER of all BOILs.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Trump did NOT "launch an offensive war" against any country. The "war" had already been established. Trump joined to help our ally, Israel.

Read the words:

(c)Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Trump did NOT "launch an offensive war" against any country. The "war" had already been established. Trump joined to help our ally, Israel.

READ:

a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Trump did NOT "launch an offensive war" against any country. The "war" had already been established. Trump joined to help our ally, Israel.

READ:

created by ATTACK upon the United States

 

[Linc]

Trump DID launch an offensive attack against Iran.

Iran did NOT attack the U.S.

And launching a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is the same thing as starting a war against Iran.

It’s similar to the Israeli sneak attack in 1967 ‘while’ UNEF was withdrawing.
As much as we despise these murdering, terrorist bastards, they were at the table.

(As much as I despise Hamas terrorists, the terrorist Bibi gave them billions.
The terrorist Bibi had daily versions of 10/7 after 10/7, still does.)

The muted response from BRICS nations sold Iran out, and erDOGan is all talk.

 

[Brusan]

Trump did NOT "launch an offensive war" against any country. The "war" had already been established. Trump joined to help our ally, Israel.

Dropping multiple "bunker buster" deep penetration bombs on your freak'n country would damn sure be classified by you as an act of war, er . . . Wouldn't it?

 

[SkyChief]

Read the words:

(c)Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Trump will use clause 2: "specific statutory authorization".

The specific statutory authorization being Commander-In-Chief's Article II powers.

 

[Jessie C]

The Presidents Article II powers include authority not only to order the use of military force to defend the United States and U.S. persons against actual or anticipated attacks, but also to advance other important national interests. Presidents of both parties have deployed U.S. forces and ordered the use of military force, without congressional authorization, on numerous occasions.

BULLSHIT.

 

[anatta]

Trump should have called it "Kinetic Military Action" like Obama/Hillary did when they decided to bomb Libya Operation Unified Protector

Libya: it's not a war if Americans can't get hurt | Jonathan Schell

Jonathan Schell for TomDispatch: The Obama administration claims that if the adversary cannot fight back, it's not a war. 'Kinetic military action', anyone?

www.theguardian.com

 

[anatta]

AOC and the word "wise" (OP) are incompatible

 

[George50]

Following President Trump's airstrikes on sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, AOC impulsively called the action "grounds for impeachment".

"The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." said AOC.

Predictably, another dem representative, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, took issue with the bombing sorties ordered by the Commander-In-Chief:

"[Trump] misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East."
Clearly both representatives are ignorant of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which empowers the President to order military action if the following conditions are met:

• Notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces to hostilities
• Withdraw those forces within 60–90 days unless Congress grants authorization or declares war.

Trump notified Congress within 2 hours of the strike, and U.S. forces (bombers) were withdrawn from Iran airspace within minutes of the strike, so both conditions of the War Powers Resolution were met.

In your opinion, would it be wise for AOC and House Minority Leader Jeffries proceed with filing Articles of Impeachment?

I think you left out a couple of important provisions in the War Powers Resolution such as:

PURPOSE AND POLICY​

Section 2:

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

And

CONSULTATION​

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

 

[George50]

Trump will use clause 2: "specific statutory authorization".

The specific statutory authorization being Commander-In-Chief's Article II powers.

First, a “statutory authorization” is a law passed by Congress.

Second, if you believe article II applies, please quote the section you refer to. Hint, there isn’t any.

 

[Athanasius68]

Read the statute:

(c)Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

50 U.S. Code § 1541 - Purpose and policy

www.law.cornell.edu

Yes, what Trump did was a violation of the Constitution. Attacking Iran required approval from Congress. This did not happen. Trump must be impeached and removed from office.

The President has discretion to use the military without Congressional approval only in 3 circumstances:

(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

This.

Did.

Not.

Happen.

The statutory authority can be found in the authorization from Congress passed in 2001.

 

[SkyChief]

First, a “statutory authorization” is a law passed by Congress.

Second, if you believe article II applies, please quote the section you refer to. Hint, there isn’t any.

Nonsense. (2nd Continental) Congress wrote Article II, and it easily meets the statute requirements for "specific statutory authorization" as outlined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Trump's actions in Iran did not violate the Constitution, or any statutes. AOC is an ignoramus, and so is House Minority Leader Jeffries - - it's their job to know about these things, and clearly they don't.

Both of them should resign and give a more competent person the opportunity to serve as Representatives in their respective districts.

 

[George50]

The statutory authority can be found in the authorization from Congress passed in 2001.

Questionable. It specifically relates to organizations that were in some way involved in the 9/11 attacks and has been used against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS and al-Shabaab. Not actual countries.

 

[George50]

Nonsense. (2nd Continental) Congress wrote Article II, and it easily meets the statute requirements for "specific statutory authorization" as outlined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Nonsense. Cite the text in Article II you are referring to.

Here’s article II for you:

Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Blah, blah on how to elect a president.

Section 2 - this is your only chance​

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3​

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4​

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

[Utility Man]

President Trump says his impeachment would 'crash' the economy

Donald Trump: Impeachment would 'crash' the economy

Trump: People will ‘revolt’ if he’s impeached

Trump: People will ‘revolt’ if he’s impeached - POLITICO

President Trump on Thursday invited House Democrats to impeach him, saying, “Do it now, fast.”

Donald Trump welcomes impeachment: 'Do it now, fast' - Washington Times

Didn't he pardon those who broke into their workplace.

Yeah, ignorant is thinking that he can't strike any country he wants, including our own, and get away with it.......



.......can see where maga's use of force might now be controversial though.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Even Obama set the precedent of bombing Syria without the consent of Congress, so that's a blow against DEMs in itself!
But their is a window that the President has before military action becomes a legal issue! This is known and only the propagandist and morons will try to PRETEND that there is even an issue today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But The DEM's have dumbed down America SO MUCH that I'm sure you will get the gaslighted to say yes .......

Here's your sign !

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Trump DID launch an offensive attack against Iran.

Iran did NOT attack the U.S.

And launching a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is the same thing as starting a war against Iran.

Well Iran saying "DEATH TO AMERICA" for the last 40 yrs and them being VERY Close to having a Nuke, Totally makes this a
plausible offensive attack!

Also when you add that Biden let millions of illegals in from around the world (the middle east too) !
Trump is just in erring on the side of caution !

 

[Captain Adverse]

Radical Democrats in Congress think ANYTHING Trump does is grounds for impeachment. Fortunately for Trump and the American electorate who voted for him, unlike after 2018 currently the Democrats control neither the House nor Senate.

IMO after this short, targeted strike to remove Iran's capability to develop nuclear weapons things may very well relax in the region knowing both that possibility is gone and that under President Trump the USA is not playing any games.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

(2nd Continental) Congress wrote Article II, and it easily meets the statute requirements for "specific statutory authorization" as outlined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

There is no part of the Constitution that is a statute.

When the U.S. Congress passes a bill and it is signed into law by the President it becomes a statute.

A federal statute is a law passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President.

That is the definition of a federal statute.

The Continental Congress was gathered for the sole purpose of creating the Constitution.

The Continental Congress ceased to exist after the Constitution was ratified and the new government was formed.

Only legislation passed by the First U.S. Congress and every subsequent Congress, and signed into law by the President, after the Constitution was ratified and our government first formed, represent valid federal statutes.

This mistaken idea you have that a provision of the Constitution should be interpreted as a statute has no basis in our laws, our history, our traditions, or the Constitution, or the plain meaning of the word "statute."

There is nothing I'm writing that is controversial or up for debate. This is basic constitutional law, and basic civics.

If Article II gave the President the power to start a war or engage in an offensive military action without Congressional approval there'd be no need for Congress to declare war or pass legislation authorizing the use of military force.

If Article II gave the President the power to start a war or engage in an offensive military action without Congressional approval there'd be no need for the War Powers Act, to begin with.

Your logic makes no sense.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Trump's actions in Iran did not violate the Constitution, or any statutes. AOC is an ignoramus, and so is House Minority Leader Jeffries - - it's their job to know about these things, and clearly they don't.

Read it again:

(c)Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

--

AOC knows what she's talking about with respect to this issue. You do not.

Trump's offensive military attack on Iran was not authorized by Congress and represents a violation of the Constitution.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The statutory authority can be found in the authorization from Congress passed in 2001.

The 2001 AUMF authorizes the use of force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, such as al-Qaeda, specifically those responsible for planning, authorizing, committing, aiding the 9/11 attacks, or harboring those that did.

Iran was not responsible for planning, authorizing, committing, aiding the 9/11 attacks, or harboring those that did, so that 2001 AUMF does not apply.

What Trump did by attacking Iran's nuclear facilities was a violation of the Constitution.

I demand you cite the section in the authorization from 2001 that gives the President the authorization to engage in an offensive military action against the Iranian government directly. If you cannot do this, then you must admit to me and everyone else here that Trump violated the Constitution.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Both of them should resign and give a more competent person the opportunity to serve as Representatives in their respective districts.

What a ridiculous comment. It's as offensive, as it is false.

AOC and Jeffries are geniuses compared to Trump and his cabinet full of Fox News pundits and talk show hosts.

And, they can read. They can read the ****ing statute. They can understand the plain meaning of the words in the statute and in the Constitution which displays 1000x more brilliance than the idiot Trump.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

AOC and the word "wise" (OP) are incompatible

What you are writing is not true, it's a lie, and is most applicable to the piece of shit, ignorant convicted felon Trump.