Or for Congress to step up to rein in the clearly unlawful conduct of the Presidents. We don’t need an amendment to add language that is already in the Constitution. We need to elect Congress critters who are willing to do their damn jobs.Neither party wants this restraint on the office of POTUS. You can clearly say that the Obama strikes in Libya in 2011 also had the absence of a clear direct threat to the country or its people. The only way to restrain the war making powers of the Executive branch would be with a Constitutional Amendment which isn't going to happen.
The irony of a Trump voter saying this is just off the charts.You want a dynamic government where the rules change based on public whim. I want no such thing.
We currently have a government based on the whim of a lunatic President making shit up as he goes.You want a dynamic government where the rules change based on public whim. I want no such thing.
The idea that ten million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person has no basis in reality.
Or for Congress to step up to rein in the clearly unlawful conduct of the Presidents. We don’t need an amendment to add language that is already in the Constitution. We need to elect Congress critters who are willing to do their damn jobs.
I don't think there is a need for a constitutional amendment, again this is all just political infighting between the branches.You keep claiming the conduct is "clearly unlawful" when it isn't.
I don't think there is a need for a constitutional amendment, again this is all just political infighting between the branches.
Congress could easily say 'next time you employe the military without asking us you will be removed from office' and then do it. They won't do it because of institutional cowardice but they could if they wanted to using their existing powers.
"a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".So if a Houthis rocket hits a US warship in the Red Sea, you would want the President to wait for Congressional vote before allowing a US response?
All I'm saying is that Congress has the authority, today, to make that the standard if they so choose and don't need any additional authority. They could also choose any other standard they want which could encompass defensive actions.So if a Houthis rocket hits a US warship in the Red Sea, you would want the President to wait for Congressional vote before allowing a US response?
Of all the dum shit... Oh you fucking illiterate buffoon.You want a dynamic government where the rules change based on public whim. I want no such thing.
The idea that ten million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person has no basis in reality.
Trump literally bombed Iran based on a personal whim where he was mad about media coverage. I guess I missed Greenman's condemnation of it. Anyone have a link?Of all the dum shit... Oh you fucking illiterate buffoon.
Guess who bought the "I'd rather be a Russian than American" shirt. Holy fucks.
That scenario is already covered by the War Powers Act.So if a Houthis rocket hits a US warship in the Red Sea, you would want the President to wait for Congressional vote before allowing a US response?
“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.”
But what if I present a hypothetical scenario with completely different parameters. Checkmate.That scenario is already covered by the War Powers Act.
None of it applies to the US bombing Iran
The idea that ten million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person has no basis in reality.
And we appear to be powerless to do anything about it. A parliamentary government would allow a vote of confidence shortcut to new leadership as you see elsewhere among major democracies.We currently have a government based on the whim of a lunatic President making shit up as he goes.
All I'm saying is that Congress has the authority, today, to make that the standard if they so choose and don't need any additional authority. They could also choose any other standard they want which could encompass defensive actions.
A constitutional amendment wouldn't help because Congress isn't using the authority they already have.
Congress does have that power. They could cut the Pentagon's budget to 0 and disband the army tomorrow.You assume that Congress has the Constitutional authority to prevent the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces from Deploying troops as necessary to protect national interest.
Yes, because it is written right there in the Constitution.You assume that Congress has the Constitutional authority to prevent the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces from Deploying troops as necessary to protect national interest.
100%.You assume that Congress has the Constitutional authority to prevent the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces from Deploying troops as necessary to protect national interest.
More importantly they have the unreviewable power to remove the president at any time.Congress does have that power. They could cut the Pentagon's budget to 0 and disband the army tomorrow.
Some nebulous "national interest" exemption to Congressional authorization was definitely not in line with anyone's ideas about use of force when the Constitution was written, and we don't have to pretend that it exists.
So why are they asleep? Hasn't enough damage been done already?More importantly they have the unreviewable power to remove the president at any time.
Because there isn't 51% of the House and 67% of the Senate who want to remove him.So why are they asleep? Hasn't enough damage been done already?
More importantly they have the unreviewable power to remove the president at any time.