president of peace everybody
-
While offensive war is definitely wrong (I don't personally think defending yourself is wrong however, although some will differ), none of the undeclared wars that the US has been in since WW2 have been illegal under the laws of the United States.
POTUS has the right to send in troops, Congress has the right to declare a war but if they don't declare war that doesn't change the fact that the POTUS is legally allowed to send troops in, particularly for UN peace keeping (ie Korea, Former Yugoslavia), but even in the absence of an international umbrella.
As per post above the US president can defacto start and run a war until congress turns off the financial taps or impeaches him, only they can declare a war, and they don't like doing that, hence the last 80 years of defacto but undeclared wars
Yes, I understand the history, and I’m saying that all of those undeclared wars were a breach of the intention of the constitution to make the decision to go to war the purview of Congress.
It’s like all the other unwritten expectations of behavior that were never actual codified because the founders assumed politicians would be good people.
And now we have Trump who ignores every social more in the book and has shown that we really can’t leave good behavior down to “expectations.”
-
But genocidal Kamala is just as bad! I was informed about it multiple times by accounts on .ml (and not all of them are operating exclusively during Moscow working hours)
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
the first campaign promise by trump was to ban all muslims (even citizens) and build a wall around mexico because they are rapist.
they are not the same. people who think they are the same are arrogant morons who think they are smarter than everyone else.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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
-
He should also be aware of this legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001
... since he voted for it.
It allows military actions against any country that harbours al Qaeda... and Iran does harbour al Qaeda along with any terrorist group that aligns with their "death to Israel / America" dogma.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]No it doesn’t. Iran and Alqaeda are practically enemies.
-
Remember Vietnam?
The president has the power to deploy the military even without a declaration
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".
-
Yeah unfortunately that is not actually the way the law is written Bernie. Wish it was.
Short version, 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.
Only congress has the power to declare a war, but the Potus gets to defacto kick off the war and then dare congress not to back him.
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. So the only thing they can do is turn off the finances to the military, and wait for the money to run out - which is generally up to a year. They have no way of forcing the president to desist other than impeachment or cutting off the funds.
They can pass a motion, or even legislation, which the Prez can then veto, pointless. If they can muster the 2/3rds of congress they can remove him via impeachment.
Edit, spelling correction and to note that I can pull out the full details if needed - was discussed heavily on reddit a while ago
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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".
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
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.
