president of peace everybody
-
This is why Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. It's an open question whether the law matters.
Every President says they are not constrained, Congress says that they are. The Supreme Court says, "this is a political question, not a legal question, so the executive and legislative have to sort it out".
Then it’s no longer a constitutional problem, I think the poster should know better
-
This post did not contain any content.
Ummm, has that ever stopped any president, ever?
-
Yup. Someone has to be the ultimate commander of the military. Unfortunately (at least right now) POTUS is the commander in chief of the military.
So while his actions may not be a formal declaration of war, they certainly can cause a foreign nation to declare war on the USA.... Which simply pulls the US into a state of war regardless.
Can you guys not vote convicted felons suffering from dementia into the white house?
That would be great....
Sincerely, a Canadian.
Can you guys not vote convicted felons suffering from dementia into the white house?
You’re right. Next time we should vote for someone respectable! Someone who has experience! Someone who went to a good school and is smart! Someone who hasn’t been convicted of a crime! Someone like that would NEVER illegally start a war of aggression on false premises! Such a completely hypothetical scenario is basically
unmemorableunimaginable! -
Your comment contradicts the Wikipedia entry...
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. ch. 33) is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".
Scroll down that page to the section about "Questions regarding constitutionality" after reading that, also consider
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Clinton
Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000),[1] was a case holding that members of Congress could not sue President Bill Clinton for alleged violations of the War Powers Resolution in his handling of the war in Yugoslavia.
Further reading
https://www.npr.org/2011/06/16/137222043/why-the-war-powers-act-doesnt-work
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL31133
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/RL33532.pdf
TL;DR a law being passed that intends to achieve a certain outcome is not the same as it actually achieving the outcome. The law intended to constrain the president but failed because it had no enforcement mechanism and could be vetoed by President
As Bernie well knows because he twice sponsored a change to the law that was vetoed by trump (2019 & 2020) - See your wikipedia page in the sections for Yemen and Iran
-
Banning people is bad but a genocide is worse. Unless you deny the genocide or Biden’s complicity in it.
2024 Israeli air force official: Without U.S. aid, Israel couldn't fight Gaza beyond few months
Are you a newborn?
every prezzo has been complicit with israel since forever. Tell me one prez that has been against it and defunded them. I'm willing to admit im wrong.
-
the president gets to deploy the military where ever he wishes (outside the US, posse comitatus etc). That includes invading a sovereign nation or raining missiles down on one.
That is how it's been interpreted, it's not actually what the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution. They wanted congress to be a check on the presidents 'commander in chief' role by reserving the right to declare war for congress. If the president can still effectively declare war without a declaration of war, it's the same as not having that check in the first place. It's basically a loophole that presidents have been using to do illegal things
After it was either 60 or 90 days, I forget, congress gets to “review” the decision, the problem is they have no power other than financial if they wish to stop the war.
It's 60 (with an additional 30 days to withdraw the forces) as outlined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This was an attempt by congress to close that loophole.
It's true that they can cut off funding (as per Section 5c of the WPR), but congress pretty much already had that power as per the constitution and that's not actually their only recourse. It's still technically illegal for the president to do that (which means squat thanks to the SCOTUS) but he can be challenged through the courts for it. He could also be censured and as you mention impeached for it. None of those things are likely to happen now, but my point is Bernie is basically technically correct if not practically correct.
That is how it's been interpreted, it's not actually what the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution. They wanted congress to be a check on the presidents 'commander in chief' role by reserving the right to declare war for congress.
Agreed, the founding fathers definitely didn't want a king who could wage war at his whim, but unfortunately the constitution as drafted didn't envisage a standing army under the bidding of the President, it expected militias to be levied for defense as required.
It's still technically illegal for the president to do that (which means squat thanks to the SCOTUS) but he can be challenged through the courts for it.
Kinda but not really. Something is only illegal if it is within the powers of the lawmaker to bind in that way. If the constitution doesn't provide that power then it is ultra vires and as if the law didn't exist. Unfortunately the constitutionality of the 1973 act is definitely questionable - I listed more in another response but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions_regarding_constitutionality
and
-
This post did not contain any content.
Keep pissing into the wind, Bernie.
-
Scroll down that page to the section about "Questions regarding constitutionality" after reading that, also consider
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Clinton
Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000),[1] was a case holding that members of Congress could not sue President Bill Clinton for alleged violations of the War Powers Resolution in his handling of the war in Yugoslavia.
Further reading
https://www.npr.org/2011/06/16/137222043/why-the-war-powers-act-doesnt-work
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL31133
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/RL33532.pdf
TL;DR a law being passed that intends to achieve a certain outcome is not the same as it actually achieving the outcome. The law intended to constrain the president but failed because it had no enforcement mechanism and could be vetoed by President
As Bernie well knows because he twice sponsored a change to the law that was vetoed by trump (2019 & 2020) - See your wikipedia page in the sections for Yemen and Iran
Weird that he didn't try in 2021 or 2022.
-
Banning people is bad but a genocide is worse. Unless you deny the genocide or Biden’s complicity in it.
2024 Israeli air force official: Without U.S. aid, Israel couldn't fight Gaza beyond few months
But you do realise that putting bad on top of worse doesn't make it better, right?
Being complicit with other country bombing another country, and actively doing it yourself is not the same thing, can you at least recognise it? -
But you do realise that putting bad on top of worse doesn't make it better, right?
Being complicit with other country bombing another country, and actively doing it yourself is not the same thing, can you at least recognise it?wrote on last edited by [email protected]Biden supported the invasion of Iraq. https://theintercept.com/2020/01/07/joe-biden-iraq-war-history/
He or Harris wouldn't have been any different. Proof: Biden bombed Yemen.
-
Are you a newborn?
every prezzo has been complicit with israel since forever. Tell me one prez that has been against it and defunded them. I'm willing to admit im wrong.
How does this excuse genocide?
-
Weird that he didn't try in 2021 or 2022.
The only military actions Biden did in those years were "one and done" and thus there was nothing Bernie (or the GOP) could do. Ignoring the Afghanistan shit-sandwich Mango handed him to deliver which very definitely had been passed through congress.
Somalia 2021 - missile strikes over in a day and no further action, 2022 strike on Ayman al-Zawahiri one off drone hit.
Those aren't ongoing so the most you could do is a grandstanding slap on the wrist "bad president" in some form of legislation that the President is just going to veto. You can't pass a law telling him to stop doing it when it's already been done.
-
The POTUS has a window of discretion where he can act unilaterally without congressional approval. And they ALL have done so over many terms.
The hard stop is when congress needs to appropriate funds to pay for the war/police action.
Maybe we need to take away those powers and put Congress in control.
-
Maybe we need to take away those powers and put Congress in control.
Perhaps. Until there is a real crisis that does require immediate action. There is no good answer here. Have a window of discretion, or be unable to trigger action and get innocent people killed due to inaction.
Which do you prefer?
-
This post did not contain any content.
The constitution means nothing. Trump wipes his ass with it and there’s no consequences
-
This post did not contain any content.
Well, we're waiting, any day now, determine away you useless feckless fuck.
-
I think Congress never voted on any of them and so they were never defined by the US as being at war. They were all military operations from the instruction of the president.
Potato potato
-
This post did not contain any content.
Unfortunately our Constitution isn’t worth the paper its gift shop reproductions are printed on. Unfortunately, it’s been that way for a long, long time.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Come on it is not a war, but a special military operation....
-
Biden/Harris would have done something similar to defend Israel from the consequences of its actions. Biden did bomb Yemen after all when it tried to stop the genocide. Biden is a self admitted Zionist and defended Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and supported the invasion of Iraq. Harris did nothing to distance herself from him.
Yeah, in most regards kamala would've been better, but this is Israel. She may have been less gung ho, which would be better for a handful of Iranians benefitting from slightly fewer bombs, but not better enough
