2/3 of Congress is owned by AIPAC so it wouldn’t make a different anyway.
OMG that’s hilarious. We haven’t declared war since WWII. But how many presidents have done just that? Good luck with that argument.
“I don’t care what that old paper says” -Trump
Congress has been shirking their responsibility to declare wars since the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. They gave Presidents the power to carry out military actions abroad without a formal declaration. By passing the responsibility on to the president, Congress gets to avoid the blame for unpopular wars.
Even the Vietnam “War” which lasted 10 years, was never declared by Congress.
Diaper Don gonna order brown people to get bombed so he 'looks like a tough man".
Fuck that guy and everyone who voted for him. Or chose not to vote. Fuck you even more.
There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that those who didnt vote would have voted for Harris. In fact, every person I know who didnt vote are trump defenders. Every one. Every. Single. One.
Fuck you even more.
I’ve never understood this pov. Sure you can say no vote was the same thing as a vote for trump, but surely the people that actually voted for him are worse, no? I can understand ‘fuck you just as much’, but even more?
It’s the apathy, or the belief that it somehow doesn’t matter. To quote Walter Sobchak:
Nihilists, fuck me. Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, at least it’s an ethos.
“Looks like a tough man”. Is this really the level of political comprehension we’re working with? No wonder you idiots elected a fascist. Are all of you 12? Go back to playing fortnight.
Come on it is not a war, but a special military operation…
A “Police Action.”
Went thru the same shit with Bush 20 years ago.
Indeed. Congress had 20 years to put up some guard rails, but didn’t.
Ok, so he breaks the law, AGAIN… that’ll be how many times? And how many consequences? And how will he be punished? Who will punish him? Remember, this is an insurrectionist that the administration from 17-21 did not go after because it would have been “taken as political”. So, again, who cares what the law says, because he doesn’t.
Trump has already been impeached twice. What else could they do except attempt to remove him from power, and with what army?
Uh, my point exactly. Mother fucker thinks he’s untouchable because he is. The GOP have kneecapped our democracy to the point that if you are in power, you can do whatever the fuck you want.
Didnt the supreme court decide that a president can do whatever if its an “official act”?
Being impeached doesnt inherently carry consequences.
If you think of it like a trial, the house delivers the guilty verdict (impeachment), and the senate determines the sentencing. The senate basically said, “yea so what? No consequences”
If the senate would do their job too, impeachment would mean something
I think that at this point people should settle on the fact that the only consequences Trump will ever face is in a history book 30 years after WW3/Civil War 2.
Well except in the Reconstruction States because there will be a number of lies that will endure forever, similar to the Lost Cause and Stabbed in the Back myths.
maybe cynicism will help
I think cynicism is keeping a vast majority of Americans peaceful right now. We are being told we need to be peaceful, we feel the need to fight. We all cope with this insanity in different ways man.
Eh, he’s not the first president to do so. Not to dismiss your own anger at this, but not everything can be the absolute last straw.
We’re waiting on the Kilmar contempt case still aren’t we? (Refusal to turn the planes around)
Remember Vietnam?
The president has the power to deploy the military even without a declaration
In the sense that if you take power you don’t deserve you have it
The constitution means nothing. Trump wipes his ass with it and there’s no consequences
SCOTUS ignored common law practice and decided to go literal with the interpretation of a document written 200 years ago
He’s not wrong. Definition of genocide and war crimes are also pretty clearly enshrined. As are our countries laws against funding them.
yhea, Have you seen the news?
rule of law is dead in the US
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
This is how we ended up with the Iran-Contra Scandal. The Reagan administration wanted to fight the growing communist forces in Nicaragua, but Congress forbid them, and denied them funding.
They decided to find the money by selling highly inflated arms to our bitterest enemy at the time, IRAN, only a few short years after they had held our Embassy officials hostage for over a year.
They took the profits of those illegal arms sales, and used it to finance their illegal war on Central America.
So these traitors don’t even take no for an answer when Congress shuts off the money tap.
What congress can do is refuse to pay for the war/police action. They still need to write the checks. Wars don’t last long with out money.
Its like choosing the president is a really important decision.
Sounds like more should have been done to prevent trump even getting on the ballot while his opposition was still in power. Oh wait, but then they couldn’t run on “trump bad” and would actually have to champion something for the people to get their votes. Oh well!
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)
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.
Trump killed more civilians in Yemen this one excursion than the US did in the previous 23 years.
There is bad, and there is this bad. And not differentiating between the two is criminal.By the time Biden has left office he was already responsible for over 30,000 deaths in Palestine. They are all bad.
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
I’m sorry, do you have a magical alternate reality viewer that shows Kamala not doing the same exact thing except whinging along the way about “working tirelessly” to avoid the thing that is currently happening with zero repercussions for the aggressor state… ? Come on, don’t forget the president that kept warning about non-existent red lines as Palestinians were being (and still are!) slaughtered by the thousands, and literally bypassed congress to send munitions to Israel despite this. Y’know, the thing that will now be super bad when Trump does it?
At least we & our government officials don’t have to pretend this is fucking normal just because the president is super duper apologetic about it and pinky promises that they care about all the lives involved but conspicuously only mentioning the ones belonging to the aggressor nation!!!1!
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.
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?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?
same exact thing
Yeah no.
Lmao.
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.
Not American, but I am in favour of convicted felons not being in the White House too
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!
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
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
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.
If they haven’t noticed. Trump does whatever the fuck he wants. If he ignores the ruling of courts, do they think he will read a post on X and be like “oh shit, you’re right.” No, posts on X are fucking useless. He will ignore congress like he does everything else. His ego is severely damaged after the little parade and leaders not worshipping him at G7. He is realizing his place in the food chain and looking for a win to boost his ego.
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.
I mean, the Constitution of the United States is also very clear the fucker wasn’t eligible to BE President again, but we all seem to have just shimmied right past that as well.
Do you mean because of the insurrection? I think there’s something in that part about Congress needing to do something too, so Congress dropped the ball on that.
The DoJ was a big help too
