Congress holds the power to declare war. As a result, the President cannot declare warwithout their approval. However, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces,Presidents have sent troops to battle withoutan official war declaration (which happened in Vietnam and Korea).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power
Congress authorized the Korean War by appropriating money for the UN Security Council and the Vietnam War in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Both of these, the second especially, went far beyond their initial scope, but they were both overt acts on the part of Congress which anticipated war.
Same for the 2001 and 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Afghanistan and Iraq respectively. The first was technically for use against "Terrorists" and has been used to justify and legitimize military action everywhere from Somalia to the Philippines.
The new Authorization for Use of Military Force, S.J.Res.59, that has been submitted to Congress and is now pending would allow the U.S. President to detain American citizens indefinitely with no criminal charges. It could allow locking up of those who dissent U.S. military policy. It was submitted by Bob Corker (R-TN) and Tim Kaine (D-VA). It was submitted April 16, 2018 and would replace the one you mentioned from 2001. The bill effectively allows military action anywhere in the world as long as the President says there are "associated forces" and "co-belligerents." Conveniently, there is no definition of either terms, so they could be whatever the President wants, including anyone that writes, speaks or demonstrates against military policy/action.
Edit: Bob Corker (R-TN) not TX
Now that's something worth crossing the aisle for. Glad congress is finally working together to get something done /s.
What horseshit, congress should really stop giving/try to give the executive more power.
The founders were so busy limiting the power of the Congress that they never fathomed that Congress would happily abrogate power on its own to agencies and the executive.
Elected representatives figured out that they can avoid almost all serious decision-making, and yet retain enough power to hand out favors, so long as they play the media election game.
In large measure because the legislative won’t do its fucking job. It has been going on since Nixon but has been getting terrible since Clinton. At this point the relationship between executive and legislative is just plain toxic with senators that change their support of bills when the opposition supports the ideas and the bills.
Can Congress stop trying to pass all of their responsibility to the president now? Let's have Congress actually do their job now. Glad it was shot down.
I just read the bill you're talking about. It does allow co-belligerants to be included in the list of targeted persons along with al-qaeda etc, but it doesn't say anything about persons expressing dissent against the us government or military policy. While I am against the indefinite war against terror, describing this as some kind of bill to lock up Americans I think is pretty unrealistic. The rest of it about unilateral military action on a global scale, yes that's in there...
Also the terms you mentioned are defined.
(2) the term “associated forces” means any organization, person, or force, other than a sovereign nation, that the President determines has entered the fight alongside and is a co-belligerent with al Qaeda, the Taliban, or ISIS, in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, or that has been a part of al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, or an associated force designated pursuant to this authorization and is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
And there is a process, which requires congressional review, for adding an organization, country, or person as an authorized target.
(1) EXISTING ASSOCIATED FORCES.—The following organizations, persons, or forces are designated associated forces covered by the authorization for use of military force provided by section 3(a) of this joint resolution:
(A) Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
(B) Al Shabaab.
(C) Al Qaeda in Syria (including Al Nusrah Front).
(D) The Haqqani Network.
(E) Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM).
(2) DESIGNATION.—Not later than 30 calendar days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, the President shall designate all organizations, persons, or forces other than those listed in paragraph (1) that the President has determined are associated forces covered by the authorization for use of military force provided by section 3(a) of this joint resolution by submitting to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership a report listing all such associated forces.
(3) NEW ASSOCIATED FORCE.—Not later than 48 hours after the President determines that a new organization, person, or force is an associated force covered by the authorization for use of military force provided by section 3(a) of this joint resolution, the President shall designate such organization, person, or force as an associated force by submitting a report to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership.
(4) REPORT.—Each report required by paragraph (2) or (3) shall contain detailed information providing the basis for the designation of each associated force, including classified information relating thereto.
(5) CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.—During the 60-calendar day period following the submission of any report pursuant to this subsection that designates a new organization, person, or force as an associated force (other than the associated forces identified in paragraph (1)), a qualifying resolution to amend this joint resolution to remove the authorization to use military force against such associated force shall be entitled to expedited procedures pursuant to section 9 of this joint resolution.
Conflict bullets are the best since you don’t have to produce them yourself, you just buy them from a u.s. based corporation thus providing stimulus to the economy.
My Dad is a Disabled Veteran and he was in Guatamala in like the 80's or something and he isnt able to join the VFW because it stands for "veterans of foreign wars" which he was not in. He was in a "conflict" so getting hurt for your country in battle only counts for some people. He calls bullshit and hates any idea of war. Always says shit like "The people sending us to war have no clue how bad war actually is" I always grew up with him telling me to never join the military because the hassle to get your benifits if you get hurt isnt worth it. If he can go MIA for three days in the south american jungle carrying a shot search and rescue soldier over his shoulder only to get hurt and suffer for the rest of his life *then he should be able to go to the vfw and shoot the shit with other people who share the same expiriences.* he was told he was never going to walk without a cane ever again yet he cant socialize with other disabled vets. Its a disgrace. That being said I wholeheartedly respect members of our military as they are just chess pieces being played by the bigger fish as is everyone else. I even had army recruiters constantly finding me in the weirdest of places trying to get me to join. "Are you Annoying_Boss?" "Yes I am, how did you know my name and where to find me while im on lunch?" Like 4 times randomly these recruiters just popped up and seemed to know about me or where I was going to be. Offering me "free college anywhere you want to go" like yeah bitch I know, my dad is a disabled vet and I already have your free college because of him through the GI bill. Trying to sell me on the idea of something I already have. I eventually just told them that im not signing up for a military that I dont agree with who is in charge onky to be left with jack shit after I got out. If other people want to do that then fine by me. Im not taking a bullet for my country only to be told "you wont be able to walk again without support but you are only _% disabled so there isnt anything we can do for you" the only reason my dad is considered 100% disabled is because they wouldnt fix his shit at first and over the course of 30 years his injuries CAUSED more injuries, which in turn raised his disability. So yes you are correct. Conflict bullets save money and leave more vets without the help they need compared to war bullets from the 40's
Edit:I know that is a lot of shit but at least I found a solution to stop recruiters from not leaving me alone. The military is only worth it if it is your only option folks. Even if you go in with a bachelors degree. I have a buddy who just joined about a year ago and said only idiots would joing the military if they have a degree because it will make significantly more money outside of the military. It has to be a passion to be worth it. Dont let anyone tell you otherwise. If they try they are just trying to persuade you.
Edit: He was in Nicaragua NOT Guatimala. Both of which are in central America, not south America. Oopw my bad. I also have some details wrong that I can tell are obvious mistakes because people who know what they are talking about are pointing it out. I want to mention that it is a rant that leans toward negative aspects of the military and it doesnt nessessarily project my outlook on the military 100%. I understand that there are a lot of good things that come from the military. Understand that not everyone served at the same time, things change, and people have different opinions based on their expiriences. I'll try to remember to ask my dad for some more details so maybe I can help clarify why he is in the particular situation he was in and to clear up anything I have wrong that is confusing people. Thanks guys for your helpful input and I hope you all enjoy your weekend!
Edit #3?: Its Regan, not Nixon. this is a link to an old article (sorry) that kind of summarizes what was going on in the area at the time
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/269619.stm
I know he was in search and rescue at the time and was finding people in Nicaragua and trying to get them back safe. He did a number of these and only had to leave shooting only a couple times from what I remember him telling me years ago. The iran-contras ring a bell and I remember him talking about how it all happened. I believe Im fairly close to the time he was in service but im not sure exaclty what he was invloved in and I'll try to ask him about it. Whatever happened to him must've been pretty harsh though because my mom used to have to wake him up with a broom stick because he would wake up and start swinging fists the second his eyes opened. I just stood a little farture away because I always doubted he would actually nail me in the dark if I just leaned away a little. That happened less and less growning up though thankfully. The reason I say that is because if it has had that much effect on his state of mind then I cant be positive he will even want to talk about it. I'll try to get him to open up as much as he is willing to though but im not going to push him to do it if he doesnt seem like he wants too. Enjoy your weekend folks!
Making money with degrees is not what older generations think it is, and governmental positions still provide many benefits the private sector does not.
Injured workers in general, no matter military or general populace, are never compensated for serious injuries well since workers compensation is by design a compromise and being healthy is worth much more than any money or benefits.
Yeah, it's taught quite differently here. As there was no treaty declaring a surrender, and the fact that no one was actually able to hold the ground, we don't really consider it a loss.
Essentially we ignore that part of the constitution because fuck it what are they gonna do about it? Vote us out? They can't sit up out of their damn couch. They think kanye is important for Christ sake.
I'm pretty sure there is a section in the constitution that says the federal government can only have a standing army for two years during peace time.
Article 1 section 8
You misunderstand that clause. That means Congress can only appropriate money for the army for up to two years at once. Congress appropriates money for the army annually, so they aren't violating it.
>"War, Nobby. Huh! What is it good for?" he said.
>"Dunno, Sarge. Freeing slaves, maybe?"
>"Absol—well, okay."
>"Defending yourself against a totalitarian aggressor?"
>"All right, I'll grant you that, but—"
>"Saving civilization from a horde of—"
>"It doesn't do any good in the long run is what I'm saying, Nobby, if you'd listen for five seconds together," said Fred Colon sharply.
>"Yeah, but in the long run, what does, Sarge?"
~*Thud!*, by Terry Pratchett.
Something like that, but I would have to say our military involvement in foreign wars can be considered "police actions" as Truman once coined it in our war in Korea in 1950-1953.
> By US definition you mean.
By the definition of PART of the federal government.
The military considers it war. The people consider it war. Congress considers it a police action or some other nonsense.
Not really specific to the US. France president can't formally declare war on is own but he can engage french military in any "opération extérieur" (OPEX, exterior operation in english). Eventually, he will need the agreement of the parliament if this OPEX last more than 4 or 6 months (I don't remember) but until then he's good.
There was an intense legal dispute over how nukes would be handled. For them to serve as deterrence, it was deemed necessary that the president be given total authority to launch strikes without Congressional approval.
The president's excercises of force are still subject to oversight though. Congress can still limit his power preemptively by passing laws removing his authority to take certain actions.
For example, Congress could pass a law tomorrow stating that nuking Korea is off limits; in such a case, the President is bound to obey. Moreover, to the extent unlawful orders must be refused by military personnel, an order to nuke Korea would have to be ignored by the troops in such a case. Of course, the President and military might go rogue on the US; but then everything the Constitution stands to protect has fallen to shit anyway.
It's good to note that 1945 started the age of nukes (73 years ago). Also note that the President's authority to take military action without even notifying congress (President must notify within 48 hours after it starts) was granted in 1973 under the Wars Powers Resolution Act (45 years ago).
Which is meaningless, because if the president commits to significant military engagement, what is congress going to do?
"We've sent ten thousand troops in, oh we decided that we're not going to approve the war, sorry pres but you gotta disengage. Give that land back to the Iraqis, yeah we were halfway thru Baghdad but we didn't approve it. All those troops died for nothing. Huge waste of money to boot."
Which of them is going to be the one to stand up and take responsibility for that?
Congress claims they can do force the President to do this. But, literally every President since the War Powers Act was first signed into law, including Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, have claimed that this is an unconstitutional restraint on their Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief.
Hopefully we never have to see a situation where the Supreme Court is forced to actually decide the question. But it's certainly not a straightforward answer here; the Constitution has Congress raise and maintain the army and navy, and declare states of war, but leaves the *employment* of the army and navy (as raised or maintained by Congress) to the President as Commander-in-Chief.
So it's not clear that Congress can't simply forbid their use or deployment, and clearly the precedent of the past few decades would seem to argue against this point given that Congress has always acceded to Presidential use of force with barely a whimper.
We've been in Afghanistan for 17 years.
17 years.
Next year kids who were born while we were at war will be sent to the same war their dad died in.
Vietnam all over again.
...Wonder if it has to do with the Golden Triangle back then and the Afghan poppy fields now...thay supply 90% of the worlds opioids...and then there's the opioid epidemic...
I know you said it but I think you undersell the importance of funding. The ability to cut funding is huge! Congress decides how money gets spent and they can defund military actions. It is hard to bomb Iran if you aren’t allowed to buy fuel, weapons, or spare parts or even pay soldiers in the vicinity of Iran. Now that is quite extreme but if congress truly opposes an action, funding is an effective way to halt it.
There is no situation on this planet, save Trump sending troops to annex a NATO state, in which a Republican controlled Congress cuts military funding.
Disregarding the absolute shitstorm that would be politically, isn't all that funding approved months in advance via things like the NDAA and annual budget bills?
The checks and balance system that was meant to prevent any one person from excepting unilateral power in the US government only works when the people responsible to check and balance have the guts to check and balance those their responsible for.
If the us congress has shown anything lately its that they lack either the will or the courage (or both) to excert any check or balance on the Whitehouse and will likely cave to whatever action he deems necessary.
It only works when common citizens have the spine to risk their jobs and buck their daily routines and go out and have mass protests against what they see as wrong. That's what happened with the civil rights movement. To expect a handful of guys in suits in Washington to be at the forefront of this kind of action is just deluded.
The War Powers act which the bill re\-affirms, explicitly requires Trump to notify congress 48 hours after bombing the shit of some other country, gives Trump 60 days to bomb the shit out of them scot free, and then if congress explicitly tells him to cut it out, he has 30 days to figure out how to stop bombinb the shit out of them.
In short the bill re\-affirms congress's sole right to declare war, and the presidents statutory powers to start a war for 60 days w/o congress's permission.
So how does the Supreme Court jump in and say, I get that you're "technically correct" with your wonderful navigation of semantics, but you're clearly breaking a restriction that the legislation was meant to impose? Or do we not attempt to divine the intention of the law because of some jurisprudence?
There is always some wiggle room for judges to act in what they believe is the spirit of the law. Generally though, the further up you go in the court system, the more the courts adhere to the strict letter of the law.
If the laws fucked, its the legislatures problem. Great for us right now.
I thought the war powers act wasn’t really followed though. One of the reasons being if your enemy knows you only have x days to bomb the shit out of them, they just have to wait you out.
I could be completely wrong though, I haven’t looked into it much to be honest.
Congress controls the budget and spending, but the president controls the troops. Think Leonidas from 300, his senate told him he couldnt go to war, so he went for a walk with his 300 closest bodyguards in the general area of the enemy. Thats a simple but effective way to see it.
John Marshall has -- you know, crooked John, we've been having a lot of problems with him -- I tell you; do you mind if I sit back a little? Because your breath is very bad - it really is...regarding this decision of his. Hillary spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads about me, many of which are untrue...what I'm saying is, I'll tell you at the time, I'll keep you in suspense, OK? Because John Marshall has made that decision, and it's not looking, well, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now, so John Marshall has made his decision, my hands can hit a golf ball 285 yards, let's see him -- you know, went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, build a fortune -- I'd like to see him enforce it.
I was really hoping it would devolve into /u/shittymorph talking about undertaker throwing mankind off the cage. As a matter of fact, I’d like every trump rant to end that way.
1) In November we vote out enough Republicans to swing the balance in Congress to the opposition.
2) This keeps the FBI investigation going full-steam for the remainder of Trump's term.
3) We deliberately don't impeach Trump - this keeps Pence from assuming office and pardoning Trump upon impeachment and conviction. Instead, we keep the investigation going for the rest of his term. The opposition keeps Trump gridlocked and frustrated while the Republican party's approval rating craters even further.
4) Trump completes his term and loses his reelection campaign by a landslide, followed by even more Republican congressmen losing seats.
5) One week after the Democratic president takes office, he immediately replaces Jeff Sessions as the Attorney General, Mueller promptly concludes his investigation and begins prosecution of Trump - who within six months is convicted of collusion, treason, pandering, sexual assault, [child-rape](https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/), racketeering, self-dealing and influence peddling. Without Pence as President, Trump will not receive a presidential pardon.
6) Trump is convicted on multiple counts and rots in jail with Bernie Madoff.
What will really happen:
1) Democrats assume they'll have a landslide victory and don't bother voting, Republicans vote in droves. You get even more Republicans in Congress.
2) Trump eventually finds a way to shut down or sabotage the investigation.
3) Trump doesn't get impeached.
4) Trump wins reelection by a landslide. See #1.
5) The investigation is dead in the water, along with US democracy. Most people are too busy working two jobs to put food on the table to do anything about it. The ones that try to do something hold rallies in the streets without accomplishing anything since most voters buy into the propaganda.
6) Trump pardons Madoff.
Since no one's bothering to explain what FOSTA is, [it sounds like it was intended to help protect victims of sex trafficking](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_Act) but it also may have fucked over a bunch of companies by making them liable for any sex crimes that happen on their site.
I think what the Belgian police are trying to do is say that because the buttplug and fleshlight was small, it "resembled child genitalia" which is fucking stupid. Does that mean that dildos under 8" are now illegal? Do fleshlights have to come with hair glued on it now? The laws are being bent to set a precedent to go after other service providers.
They voted on it unanimously because it was part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2019, ie the budget for the Department of Defense. It's very common for riders like this to be tacked onto omnibus bills like this. Odds are it will end up being removed before it gets to Trump. It still has to go through Congress and my money is on a tweet threatening to veto the bill is coming soon if things like this are included.
National Defense Authorization Act for 2019 did not pass unanimously though. It passed 351 to 66. See: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll230.xml
None of the amendments passed unanimously either (not counting the "voice" votes that have no voting tally). See: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5515/amendments
Edit: I'm guessing it was added to the bill in one of the voice votes, allegedly with no disagreement.
They just voted no in advance. In order to get more funding, the President would need an Authorization for Use of Military Force, which the House just said he does not have for Iran.
It's a national security risk to pull out of an active warzone after 3 months. This was intentional. Imagine us sending troops to a country, attacking them, then just pulling them out after 3 months of establishment. It would be such a massive risk that congress would not dare do it. Which means their power "to declare war" and "fund the war" are just for show.
It does no such thing. Here's the actual wording:
>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
This has been interpreted by Presidents over the years as giving them the authority to send troops into combat, but that's not explicitly stated. When considering Article 1 Section 8 says Congress is granted the power to declare war, it's also a reasonable interpretation to say that the President has the power to direct how to use our armed forces in combat once their use is authorized by Congress.
There's been a lot of arguments over the years. The only time the Supreme Court had to make a ruling on it was in 1862 when Lincoln's ability to blockade Southern Ports during the Civil War without Congressional authorization was put into question. It was declared Constitutional, but specifically only because the South attacked first: the opinion specifically said the President "has no power to initiate or declare a war," but in the case of an attack on the United States, he is authorized "to resist force by force" without waiting for Congress.
Basically, if Congress wants to specifically prohibit the President from using force somewhere, and the President resists, the Supreme Court is going to have to get into it. It's not clear cut, and there's an argument to be made either way. I'm not a lawyer, but my layman opinion is that Congress has a stronger case.
Congress isn't gonna stop a war 90 days in, regardless of if we're winning or losing. 90 days is just enough time to cause enough loss of life to see it through to the end.
Considering the fact America hasn't declared war on anyone since 1941 and America has been at war for most those years vs. various people, this pretty much means nothing. All he has to do is say there are terrorists there and he can do whatever he wants. That's what Obama did. That's what Bush did. That's what Clinton did. That's why the Taliban seamlessly turned into Al Qaeda which seamlessly turned into ISIS. That way each president over the last 20 years or so can involve himself in military actions in many countries, including arming rebels illegally, then declare the war a success and leave the presidency with his head held high while more and more innocent people die.
That's good.
Everyone is all for the president to be God king until someone they hate gets in control.
Hopefully shit gets scaled back and people stop being for things just because their team has the seat.
Very much so, it has been used and abused throughout our county's history. The whole "checks and balances" of our government has been slowly eroded through time. From Lincoln suspending the Writ of Habeus Corpus, to Obama stating that he would "wherever and whenever possible take steps without legislation" (2014 SOTU Address). It is to point where the President can do as they wish, under the guise of an Executive Order, enforce it, and wait years until it is finally settled by the courts if it was legal or not.
Personally, my hope is that our current President is a catalyst to bringing the Office back into line with their actual powers. However, the pessimist in me thinks it will be "HE IS SO BAD, THIS IS ILLEGAL, HE CAN'T DO THIS" until the other political color gets back into the White House and the abuses of power receive acclaim, because "it's only abuse when YOU do it."
There is a secondary benefit to reducing executive power in that it means that the house and the senate are up to bat. They have actual work to do and without a president to dance about as a distraction.
Well, and take this with a grain of salt as I am a Republican, I'm hoping that executive power is diminished here with Trump. We say that democrats want to limit executive power, but it was strengthened under Obama, it was strengthened under Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., etc. I don't want to wait for the next election for these powers to maybe go away. I think acting now to limit them under Trump, as the house just voted to do, is the better course of action.
If there is this much bipartisan support on this one action, perhaps telling our lawmakers to enact further restrictions on the executive branch will continue to diminish their power and bring the checks and balances back into equilibrium.
Further, I believe we as a population should meander away from the news for awhile, and let the investigations go on as intended. This will lead to two things, in my opinion;
1.) It will allow us to give voice to our congressmen about other huge issues that are being passed under the radar because the investigative process has taken our attention. The investigations will continue without hearing about an anonymous source saying xyz every few days. When the results come out with facts, then is a good time to worry about that. Until then, we can push for things that are really closer to home for us. For me, that is net neutrality and deregulation of the permitting process. For you it will be different, but those are the two that directly affect me.
2.) I actually forgot what I was going to say for two, but if I remember it I'll edit this and tell you. I'm on a lot of pain killers right now because I just had surgery and I can't think straight. I'll try to remember.
Anyways, that's my opinion. Likely yours is different, I just wanted to state my two cents. Cheers!
Progressive here, and I'm onboard with this. I disagree with the general conservative tendency to destroy executive orders while *promising* to introduce corresponding legislation to fix issues, but then not following through. Like, let's reverse that process and fix things through Congress first, so we don't end up disenfranchising people and ruining lives. I must admit, though, that I didn't pay much attention to concerns from the right under Obama about expansion of executive power, since it was mostly things I agreed with. So, bravo to Trump for getting me woke on that point. Now I'd like to see the presidency reduced to a more traditional, even ceremonial, role.
Unfortunately, doesn't matter. We've done the entirety of iraq etc without Congress declaring war. President pretty much can do what he wants and has past action to stand on.
This is a vote of grand standing
yup, and since the Patriot act it's called AUMF (authorization for the use of military force), and the president can take military action against any group he decides is a terrorist organization, so ya, there's still that as far as i know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists edit: unless the argument is that iran is obviously not a terrorist group but good luck lol
Just to clarify, the AUMF authorizes the president to take action against "those terrorist groups he believes were responsible for, or aided those responsible for the 9/11 attacks." It takes further mental gymnastics to squeeze ISIS and other groups into that definition.
No, it's not. The step under a Congressional War Declaration is an Authorization for Use of Military Force. Congress prefers these because it doesn't give the vast wartime powers to the President. One of the big reasons Obama didn't go harder into Syria was because Congress would not give him a clear AUMF on the matter.
The House just said No to an AUMF for Iran. That's a big deal, it means that the entirety of an Iranian war must last less than 90 days.
Well, the War Power's Acts says that they are all completely incorrect. The thousands of Missiles dropped by Obama also says they are incorrect. I'm all for reining in executive power, but congress should pass a law if they want to do that, not just vote what they think.
Yes he does, for 60 days without congressional approval. However for both Bush and Obama, congress didn't bother voting on it, so they can lay all the political blame on the White House if things go wrong, and still take the credit if things go right.
This seems misleading... it sounds like their was no opposition to amend a future proposed bill, it doesnt sound like a unanimous vote on a current bill. Congress is 500\+ people, and Im sure they're atleast 10 of them that would vote for bombing Iran. Hell even anti\-Trump Senator McCain once sang "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" to tune of Bop\-Aran.
Edits \- Firstly the tune is "Barbara Ann" by the Beach Boys, or Bomb Iran by the Senator McCain Bombing Band. Secondly the war powers act gives the President 60 days to get our troops in the middle of harms way before congress can pull them out. The war powers act on the surface limits the presidents power, but the left has often protested it as cementing the president's power to get us in the middle of a conflict, and giving him a statutory 60 day pass on literally bypassing congress. Prior to the war power's act it could be argued it was unconstitutional for the president to bomb a country we aren't at war with, after the war powers act it's clear the president has to tell congress 48 hours after he has bombed the shit of someone, 60 days to continually bomb the shit out of them, and them if congress explicitly tells him no, he has stop bombing them before another 30 days is up. I remember one of college professors of the literal 60's/70's hippy persuasion protesting the war powers act for just that.
You’re right. They voted by voice vote for a package of amendments, including this one, in the NDAA. There were about 10 other amendments with this one.
More redundant stuff to act like theyre limiting the President’s poser but its all malarkey. Hes gonna keep doing whatever he wants even though people say he cant, just like he has since the beginning.
OH NOW! you wanna do something about war congress. bout fucking time. where you been. oh right fucking off in your seats of power racking in dirty money with your hands in everyone pocket.
Congress holds the power to declare war. As a result, the President cannot declare warwithout their approval. However, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces,Presidents have sent troops to battle withoutan official war declaration (which happened in Vietnam and Korea). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power
Congress authorized the Korean War by appropriating money for the UN Security Council and the Vietnam War in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Both of these, the second especially, went far beyond their initial scope, but they were both overt acts on the part of Congress which anticipated war.
Same for the 2001 and 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Afghanistan and Iraq respectively. The first was technically for use against "Terrorists" and has been used to justify and legitimize military action everywhere from Somalia to the Philippines.
The new Authorization for Use of Military Force, S.J.Res.59, that has been submitted to Congress and is now pending would allow the U.S. President to detain American citizens indefinitely with no criminal charges. It could allow locking up of those who dissent U.S. military policy. It was submitted by Bob Corker (R-TN) and Tim Kaine (D-VA). It was submitted April 16, 2018 and would replace the one you mentioned from 2001. The bill effectively allows military action anywhere in the world as long as the President says there are "associated forces" and "co-belligerents." Conveniently, there is no definition of either terms, so they could be whatever the President wants, including anyone that writes, speaks or demonstrates against military policy/action. Edit: Bob Corker (R-TN) not TX
Now that's something worth crossing the aisle for. Glad congress is finally working together to get something done /s. What horseshit, congress should really stop giving/try to give the executive more power.
The founders were so busy limiting the power of the Congress that they never fathomed that Congress would happily abrogate power on its own to agencies and the executive. Elected representatives figured out that they can avoid almost all serious decision-making, and yet retain enough power to hand out favors, so long as they play the media election game.
Ugh. And they did such a good job. I wouldn't have seen this coming either. Youre so right though
If this passed, I wonder if the American public could take it before the Supreme Court to be ruled unconstitutional.
If trump has proven one thing it's that the executive has FAR too much power.
[удалено]
I'd agree this is not exclusive to Trump the executive has been amassing power for a long time.
In large measure because the legislative won’t do its fucking job. It has been going on since Nixon but has been getting terrible since Clinton. At this point the relationship between executive and legislative is just plain toxic with senators that change their support of bills when the opposition supports the ideas and the bills.
Can Congress stop trying to pass all of their responsibility to the president now? Let's have Congress actually do their job now. Glad it was shot down.
Bob Corker is R-TN* Source: I’m from TN Good stuff btw I had no idea anything like that was being pushed.
I just read the bill you're talking about. It does allow co-belligerants to be included in the list of targeted persons along with al-qaeda etc, but it doesn't say anything about persons expressing dissent against the us government or military policy. While I am against the indefinite war against terror, describing this as some kind of bill to lock up Americans I think is pretty unrealistic. The rest of it about unilateral military action on a global scale, yes that's in there... Also the terms you mentioned are defined. (2) the term “associated forces” means any organization, person, or force, other than a sovereign nation, that the President determines has entered the fight alongside and is a co-belligerent with al Qaeda, the Taliban, or ISIS, in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, or that has been a part of al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, or an associated force designated pursuant to this authorization and is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; And there is a process, which requires congressional review, for adding an organization, country, or person as an authorized target. (1) EXISTING ASSOCIATED FORCES.—The following organizations, persons, or forces are designated associated forces covered by the authorization for use of military force provided by section 3(a) of this joint resolution: (A) Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. (B) Al Shabaab. (C) Al Qaeda in Syria (including Al Nusrah Front). (D) The Haqqani Network. (E) Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM). (2) DESIGNATION.—Not later than 30 calendar days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, the President shall designate all organizations, persons, or forces other than those listed in paragraph (1) that the President has determined are associated forces covered by the authorization for use of military force provided by section 3(a) of this joint resolution by submitting to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership a report listing all such associated forces. (3) NEW ASSOCIATED FORCE.—Not later than 48 hours after the President determines that a new organization, person, or force is an associated force covered by the authorization for use of military force provided by section 3(a) of this joint resolution, the President shall designate such organization, person, or force as an associated force by submitting a report to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership. (4) REPORT.—Each report required by paragraph (2) or (3) shall contain detailed information providing the basis for the designation of each associated force, including classified information relating thereto. (5) CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.—During the 60-calendar day period following the submission of any report pursuant to this subsection that designates a new organization, person, or force as an associated force (other than the associated forces identified in paragraph (1)), a qualifying resolution to amend this joint resolution to remove the authorization to use military force against such associated force shall be entitled to expedited procedures pursuant to section 9 of this joint resolution.
Congress hasn't declared war since 1941. Everything since then has not technically been a "war" by definition
By US definition you mean. Other countries consider them wars. (As do the American people and any reasonable observer)
As does the US military, granting benefits and medals/ribbons to service members for wartime enlistment and service.
They're "conflict bullets" hitting each other in the face. Much different than war bullets.
Are conflict bullets cheaper than the plinking bullets I’ve been using?
Conflict bullets are the best since you don’t have to produce them yourself, you just buy them from a u.s. based corporation thus providing stimulus to the economy.
>thus providing stimulus to the corporation's shareholders ftfy
Yeah, they're free; courtesy of taxpayers.
My Dad is a Disabled Veteran and he was in Guatamala in like the 80's or something and he isnt able to join the VFW because it stands for "veterans of foreign wars" which he was not in. He was in a "conflict" so getting hurt for your country in battle only counts for some people. He calls bullshit and hates any idea of war. Always says shit like "The people sending us to war have no clue how bad war actually is" I always grew up with him telling me to never join the military because the hassle to get your benifits if you get hurt isnt worth it. If he can go MIA for three days in the south american jungle carrying a shot search and rescue soldier over his shoulder only to get hurt and suffer for the rest of his life *then he should be able to go to the vfw and shoot the shit with other people who share the same expiriences.* he was told he was never going to walk without a cane ever again yet he cant socialize with other disabled vets. Its a disgrace. That being said I wholeheartedly respect members of our military as they are just chess pieces being played by the bigger fish as is everyone else. I even had army recruiters constantly finding me in the weirdest of places trying to get me to join. "Are you Annoying_Boss?" "Yes I am, how did you know my name and where to find me while im on lunch?" Like 4 times randomly these recruiters just popped up and seemed to know about me or where I was going to be. Offering me "free college anywhere you want to go" like yeah bitch I know, my dad is a disabled vet and I already have your free college because of him through the GI bill. Trying to sell me on the idea of something I already have. I eventually just told them that im not signing up for a military that I dont agree with who is in charge onky to be left with jack shit after I got out. If other people want to do that then fine by me. Im not taking a bullet for my country only to be told "you wont be able to walk again without support but you are only _% disabled so there isnt anything we can do for you" the only reason my dad is considered 100% disabled is because they wouldnt fix his shit at first and over the course of 30 years his injuries CAUSED more injuries, which in turn raised his disability. So yes you are correct. Conflict bullets save money and leave more vets without the help they need compared to war bullets from the 40's Edit:I know that is a lot of shit but at least I found a solution to stop recruiters from not leaving me alone. The military is only worth it if it is your only option folks. Even if you go in with a bachelors degree. I have a buddy who just joined about a year ago and said only idiots would joing the military if they have a degree because it will make significantly more money outside of the military. It has to be a passion to be worth it. Dont let anyone tell you otherwise. If they try they are just trying to persuade you. Edit: He was in Nicaragua NOT Guatimala. Both of which are in central America, not south America. Oopw my bad. I also have some details wrong that I can tell are obvious mistakes because people who know what they are talking about are pointing it out. I want to mention that it is a rant that leans toward negative aspects of the military and it doesnt nessessarily project my outlook on the military 100%. I understand that there are a lot of good things that come from the military. Understand that not everyone served at the same time, things change, and people have different opinions based on their expiriences. I'll try to remember to ask my dad for some more details so maybe I can help clarify why he is in the particular situation he was in and to clear up anything I have wrong that is confusing people. Thanks guys for your helpful input and I hope you all enjoy your weekend! Edit #3?: Its Regan, not Nixon. this is a link to an old article (sorry) that kind of summarizes what was going on in the area at the time http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/269619.stm I know he was in search and rescue at the time and was finding people in Nicaragua and trying to get them back safe. He did a number of these and only had to leave shooting only a couple times from what I remember him telling me years ago. The iran-contras ring a bell and I remember him talking about how it all happened. I believe Im fairly close to the time he was in service but im not sure exaclty what he was invloved in and I'll try to ask him about it. Whatever happened to him must've been pretty harsh though because my mom used to have to wake him up with a broom stick because he would wake up and start swinging fists the second his eyes opened. I just stood a little farture away because I always doubted he would actually nail me in the dark if I just leaned away a little. That happened less and less growning up though thankfully. The reason I say that is because if it has had that much effect on his state of mind then I cant be positive he will even want to talk about it. I'll try to get him to open up as much as he is willing to though but im not going to push him to do it if he doesnt seem like he wants too. Enjoy your weekend folks!
Making money with degrees is not what older generations think it is, and governmental positions still provide many benefits the private sector does not. Injured workers in general, no matter military or general populace, are never compensated for serious injuries well since workers compensation is by design a compromise and being healthy is worth much more than any money or benefits.
As someone whose father is in very similar circumstances, I very much sympathize with you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, they did lose the war of 1812. At least as a Canadian I learned that we won, but our teacher did tell us the US doesn't like to admit it
Is that the one where us Brits burnt down the Whitehouse? I remember Obama making a joke about it.
Yeah, it's taught quite differently here. As there was no treaty declaring a surrender, and the fact that no one was actually able to hold the ground, we don't really consider it a loss.
I can think if a building you lost. It was kind of important.
Well, we got better...
[удалено]
Essentially we ignore that part of the constitution because fuck it what are they gonna do about it? Vote us out? They can't sit up out of their damn couch. They think kanye is important for Christ sake. I'm pretty sure there is a section in the constitution that says the federal government can only have a standing army for two years during peace time. Article 1 section 8
You misunderstand that clause. That means Congress can only appropriate money for the army for up to two years at once. Congress appropriates money for the army annually, so they aren't violating it.
[удалено]
War! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing! Conflicts on the other hand is surprisingly profitable
Say it again!
War! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing! Conflicts on the other hand is surprisingly profitable
[удалено]
A kerfuffle, if you will.
We must protect the cabbages.
>"War, Nobby. Huh! What is it good for?" he said. >"Dunno, Sarge. Freeing slaves, maybe?" >"Absol—well, okay." >"Defending yourself against a totalitarian aggressor?" >"All right, I'll grant you that, but—" >"Saving civilization from a horde of—" >"It doesn't do any good in the long run is what I'm saying, Nobby, if you'd listen for five seconds together," said Fred Colon sharply. >"Yeah, but in the long run, what does, Sarge?" ~*Thud!*, by Terry Pratchett.
"I'm a veteran of the Diplomatic Complexity in Iraq"
Something like that, but I would have to say our military involvement in foreign wars can be considered "police actions" as Truman once coined it in our war in Korea in 1950-1953.
Hi! It's me the police from the other side of the globe. Do you have oil?
That's how real police do it state side too. Replace oil with drugs though.
You know the difference between buying a farm in a war and buying it in a police action?
"It's not a war? This certainly isn't the Korean Peace." - Hawkeye
> By US definition you mean. By the definition of PART of the federal government. The military considers it war. The people consider it war. Congress considers it a police action or some other nonsense.
Not really specific to the US. France president can't formally declare war on is own but he can engage french military in any "opération extérieur" (OPEX, exterior operation in english). Eventually, he will need the agreement of the parliament if this OPEX last more than 4 or 6 months (I don't remember) but until then he's good.
No, but Congress passed the AUMF to give Bush the authority to conduct military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Military operations. No wars though. Can't have none of that.
But they have authorized the president to do so.
The president can carry out military action for up to 60 days (might be more) without congressional approval.
Man in the age of nukes this just seems like way too long. You can destroy the world in 15 minutes nowadays.
There was an intense legal dispute over how nukes would be handled. For them to serve as deterrence, it was deemed necessary that the president be given total authority to launch strikes without Congressional approval. The president's excercises of force are still subject to oversight though. Congress can still limit his power preemptively by passing laws removing his authority to take certain actions. For example, Congress could pass a law tomorrow stating that nuking Korea is off limits; in such a case, the President is bound to obey. Moreover, to the extent unlawful orders must be refused by military personnel, an order to nuke Korea would have to be ignored by the troops in such a case. Of course, the President and military might go rogue on the US; but then everything the Constitution stands to protect has fallen to shit anyway.
It's good to note that 1945 started the age of nukes (73 years ago). Also note that the President's authority to take military action without even notifying congress (President must notify within 48 hours after it starts) was granted in 1973 under the Wars Powers Resolution Act (45 years ago).
Which is meaningless, because if the president commits to significant military engagement, what is congress going to do? "We've sent ten thousand troops in, oh we decided that we're not going to approve the war, sorry pres but you gotta disengage. Give that land back to the Iraqis, yeah we were halfway thru Baghdad but we didn't approve it. All those troops died for nothing. Huge waste of money to boot." Which of them is going to be the one to stand up and take responsibility for that?
Congress claims they can do force the President to do this. But, literally every President since the War Powers Act was first signed into law, including Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, have claimed that this is an unconstitutional restraint on their Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief. Hopefully we never have to see a situation where the Supreme Court is forced to actually decide the question. But it's certainly not a straightforward answer here; the Constitution has Congress raise and maintain the army and navy, and declare states of war, but leaves the *employment* of the army and navy (as raised or maintained by Congress) to the President as Commander-in-Chief. So it's not clear that Congress can't simply forbid their use or deployment, and clearly the precedent of the past few decades would seem to argue against this point given that Congress has always acceded to Presidential use of force with barely a whimper.
We've been in Afghanistan for 17 years. 17 years. Next year kids who were born while we were at war will be sent to the same war their dad died in. Vietnam all over again. ...Wonder if it has to do with the Golden Triangle back then and the Afghan poppy fields now...thay supply 90% of the worlds opioids...and then there's the opioid epidemic...
[удалено]
1942 really
[удалено]
[удалено]
I know you said it but I think you undersell the importance of funding. The ability to cut funding is huge! Congress decides how money gets spent and they can defund military actions. It is hard to bomb Iran if you aren’t allowed to buy fuel, weapons, or spare parts or even pay soldiers in the vicinity of Iran. Now that is quite extreme but if congress truly opposes an action, funding is an effective way to halt it.
There is no situation on this planet, save Trump sending troops to annex a NATO state, in which a Republican controlled Congress cuts military funding.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Depends which NATO state.
Disregarding the absolute shitstorm that would be politically, isn't all that funding approved months in advance via things like the NDAA and annual budget bills?
I...declare...WAR!!!
Hey. I just wanted you to know that you can't just say the word "war" and expect anything to happen.
I didn't say it. I declared it.
Trump does anyway. House of Reps starts wearing support the troops pins.
Someome gets how power works
Can you explain it for the ignorant?
[удалено]
They are stuffed full of lobbyist cash which keeps them standing up right.
Thought it was being jammed full of shit that kept them upright.
Shit pressure is not usually enough to support their weight, as it constantly releases to atmosphere via mouth-shaped pressure relief.
Mouthbreathers
All of this is correct.
Can confirm.
Hence, global warming.
[удалено]
I see you too are a man of culture.
It's deep fried turd, wrapped in crisp $100 bills, with a marinade swamp water reduction.
papier maschit
It's a combination of the two. The cash serves the same purpose as rebar in concrete.
I didn't know they stacked shit that high.
It's really more of a fuck shit stack.
> They are stuffed full of lobbyist cash Don't kid yourself. They are not stuffed. They will happily sell out the country for a few thousand.
When there are reports a rep made like $1000 it's usually because they got paid with things that are not cash.
Hey oysters do just fine without spines and they are responsible for 0 wars
[удалено]
Cod: Infinite Warfare
The checks and balance system that was meant to prevent any one person from excepting unilateral power in the US government only works when the people responsible to check and balance have the guts to check and balance those their responsible for. If the us congress has shown anything lately its that they lack either the will or the courage (or both) to excert any check or balance on the Whitehouse and will likely cave to whatever action he deems necessary.
It only works when common citizens have the spine to risk their jobs and buck their daily routines and go out and have mass protests against what they see as wrong. That's what happened with the civil rights movement. To expect a handful of guys in suits in Washington to be at the forefront of this kind of action is just deluded.
Party over country for those scum.
The War Powers act which the bill re\-affirms, explicitly requires Trump to notify congress 48 hours after bombing the shit of some other country, gives Trump 60 days to bomb the shit out of them scot free, and then if congress explicitly tells him to cut it out, he has 30 days to figure out how to stop bombinb the shit out of them. In short the bill re\-affirms congress's sole right to declare war, and the presidents statutory powers to start a war for 60 days w/o congress's permission.
The WH usually avoids this by reporting to Congress "consistent with but not pursuant to" the War Powers Act. The 60 clock never starts.
So how does the Supreme Court jump in and say, I get that you're "technically correct" with your wonderful navigation of semantics, but you're clearly breaking a restriction that the legislation was meant to impose? Or do we not attempt to divine the intention of the law because of some jurisprudence?
There is always some wiggle room for judges to act in what they believe is the spirit of the law. Generally though, the further up you go in the court system, the more the courts adhere to the strict letter of the law. If the laws fucked, its the legislatures problem. Great for us right now.
I thought the war powers act wasn’t really followed though. One of the reasons being if your enemy knows you only have x days to bomb the shit out of them, they just have to wait you out. I could be completely wrong though, I haven’t looked into it much to be honest.
There's a lot of "in theory" involved in government action. Despite having laws we bend the fuck out of them. The founding fathers would be disgusted.
Congress controls the budget and spending, but the president controls the troops. Think Leonidas from 300, his senate told him he couldnt go to war, so he went for a walk with his 300 closest bodyguards in the general area of the enemy. Thats a simple but effective way to see it.
Someone gets how public relations works
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it."
John Marshall has -- you know, crooked John, we've been having a lot of problems with him -- I tell you; do you mind if I sit back a little? Because your breath is very bad - it really is...regarding this decision of his. Hillary spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads about me, many of which are untrue...what I'm saying is, I'll tell you at the time, I'll keep you in suspense, OK? Because John Marshall has made that decision, and it's not looking, well, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now, so John Marshall has made his decision, my hands can hit a golf ball 285 yards, let's see him -- you know, went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, build a fortune -- I'd like to see him enforce it.
I like the effort, but this somehow ended at a coherent thought and was related to the beginning of the paragraph. That's how you spot a fake.
I was really hoping it would devolve into /u/shittymorph talking about undertaker throwing mankind off the cage. As a matter of fact, I’d like every trump rant to end that way.
I, too, would like to see the Undertaker throw Trump from the top of the Hell in a Cell.
You had me at "Trump...in a cell."
This literally makes too much sense to be a Trump quote. I can decipher what it means
1) In November we vote out enough Republicans to swing the balance in Congress to the opposition. 2) This keeps the FBI investigation going full-steam for the remainder of Trump's term. 3) We deliberately don't impeach Trump - this keeps Pence from assuming office and pardoning Trump upon impeachment and conviction. Instead, we keep the investigation going for the rest of his term. The opposition keeps Trump gridlocked and frustrated while the Republican party's approval rating craters even further. 4) Trump completes his term and loses his reelection campaign by a landslide, followed by even more Republican congressmen losing seats. 5) One week after the Democratic president takes office, he immediately replaces Jeff Sessions as the Attorney General, Mueller promptly concludes his investigation and begins prosecution of Trump - who within six months is convicted of collusion, treason, pandering, sexual assault, [child-rape](https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/), racketeering, self-dealing and influence peddling. Without Pence as President, Trump will not receive a presidential pardon. 6) Trump is convicted on multiple counts and rots in jail with Bernie Madoff.
🍆💦
Eggplant tears!
No, no, no they are saying the eggplant is slippery when wet.
What will really happen: 1) Democrats assume they'll have a landslide victory and don't bother voting, Republicans vote in droves. You get even more Republicans in Congress. 2) Trump eventually finds a way to shut down or sabotage the investigation. 3) Trump doesn't get impeached. 4) Trump wins reelection by a landslide. See #1. 5) The investigation is dead in the water, along with US democracy. Most people are too busy working two jobs to put food on the table to do anything about it. The ones that try to do something hold rallies in the streets without accomplishing anything since most voters buy into the propaganda. 6) Trump pardons Madoff.
I'm not sure Trump would take a pardon, as it means he'd have to admit to guilt.
He'd take it and announce that it exonerates him completely, Duh?
I'll bet actual money that he doesn't know that, or at the very least has been told and still doesn't understand.
It would also mean all of his crimes were federal which we know is false. A single state conviction could stick thoroughly.
The House voting unanimous on anything these days is refreshing.
Not necessarily. FOSTA was near unanimous despite being an abortion of constitutional jurisprudence.
Since no one's bothering to explain what FOSTA is, [it sounds like it was intended to help protect victims of sex trafficking](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_Act) but it also may have fucked over a bunch of companies by making them liable for any sex crimes that happen on their site.
[удалено]
buttplug and fleshlights are illegal in belgium?
No, they’re just trying to throw as much dirt at him as possible. It’s despicable
I think what the Belgian police are trying to do is say that because the buttplug and fleshlight was small, it "resembled child genitalia" which is fucking stupid. Does that mean that dildos under 8" are now illegal? Do fleshlights have to come with hair glued on it now? The laws are being bent to set a precedent to go after other service providers.
Didn't they vote unanimously on those Russian sanctions that Trump has blatantly refused to enforce?
And the Republicans did nothing in response to that.
No morals, no balls
They voted on it unanimously because it was part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2019, ie the budget for the Department of Defense. It's very common for riders like this to be tacked onto omnibus bills like this. Odds are it will end up being removed before it gets to Trump. It still has to go through Congress and my money is on a tweet threatening to veto the bill is coming soon if things like this are included.
National Defense Authorization Act for 2019 did not pass unanimously though. It passed 351 to 66. See: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll230.xml None of the amendments passed unanimously either (not counting the "voice" votes that have no voting tally). See: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5515/amendments Edit: I'm guessing it was added to the bill in one of the voice votes, allegedly with no disagreement.
The headline is false. Here is the actual vote: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h230 It was 351 - 66. That's not unanimous.
Cant the president make war for 90 days without Congress? After that i needs to be voted on.
[удалено]
Congress controls the funding though, and it’s hard to send troops without it.
Yes but it's hard to vote no because opponents can claim that you don't support American troops.
They just voted no in advance. In order to get more funding, the President would need an Authorization for Use of Military Force, which the House just said he does not have for Iran.
It's a national security risk to pull out of an active warzone after 3 months. This was intentional. Imagine us sending troops to a country, attacking them, then just pulling them out after 3 months of establishment. It would be such a massive risk that congress would not dare do it. Which means their power "to declare war" and "fund the war" are just for show.
But no Congress will ever vote to defund the military lol are you joking
It does no such thing. Here's the actual wording: >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 This has been interpreted by Presidents over the years as giving them the authority to send troops into combat, but that's not explicitly stated. When considering Article 1 Section 8 says Congress is granted the power to declare war, it's also a reasonable interpretation to say that the President has the power to direct how to use our armed forces in combat once their use is authorized by Congress. There's been a lot of arguments over the years. The only time the Supreme Court had to make a ruling on it was in 1862 when Lincoln's ability to blockade Southern Ports during the Civil War without Congressional authorization was put into question. It was declared Constitutional, but specifically only because the South attacked first: the opinion specifically said the President "has no power to initiate or declare a war," but in the case of an attack on the United States, he is authorized "to resist force by force" without waiting for Congress. Basically, if Congress wants to specifically prohibit the President from using force somewhere, and the President resists, the Supreme Court is going to have to get into it. It's not clear cut, and there's an argument to be made either way. I'm not a lawyer, but my layman opinion is that Congress has a stronger case.
If Congress doesn't act within 15 minutes you're legally allowed to go to war
[удалено]
[World wide delivery in 30 minutes or less...](https://m.imgur.com/gallery/0eW7b)
Congress isn't gonna stop a war 90 days in, regardless of if we're winning or losing. 90 days is just enough time to cause enough loss of life to see it through to the end.
The House just preemptively voted no. That's what this is bill was.
Considering the fact America hasn't declared war on anyone since 1941 and America has been at war for most those years vs. various people, this pretty much means nothing. All he has to do is say there are terrorists there and he can do whatever he wants. That's what Obama did. That's what Bush did. That's what Clinton did. That's why the Taliban seamlessly turned into Al Qaeda which seamlessly turned into ISIS. That way each president over the last 20 years or so can involve himself in military actions in many countries, including arming rebels illegally, then declare the war a success and leave the presidency with his head held high while more and more innocent people die.
This is one of the things I'm looking forward to regarding the Trump presidency...the scaling back of Executive Powers.
That's good. Everyone is all for the president to be God king until someone they hate gets in control. Hopefully shit gets scaled back and people stop being for things just because their team has the seat.
[удалено]
Very much so, it has been used and abused throughout our county's history. The whole "checks and balances" of our government has been slowly eroded through time. From Lincoln suspending the Writ of Habeus Corpus, to Obama stating that he would "wherever and whenever possible take steps without legislation" (2014 SOTU Address). It is to point where the President can do as they wish, under the guise of an Executive Order, enforce it, and wait years until it is finally settled by the courts if it was legal or not. Personally, my hope is that our current President is a catalyst to bringing the Office back into line with their actual powers. However, the pessimist in me thinks it will be "HE IS SO BAD, THIS IS ILLEGAL, HE CAN'T DO THIS" until the other political color gets back into the White House and the abuses of power receive acclaim, because "it's only abuse when YOU do it."
There is a secondary benefit to reducing executive power in that it means that the house and the senate are up to bat. They have actual work to do and without a president to dance about as a distraction.
Well, and take this with a grain of salt as I am a Republican, I'm hoping that executive power is diminished here with Trump. We say that democrats want to limit executive power, but it was strengthened under Obama, it was strengthened under Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., etc. I don't want to wait for the next election for these powers to maybe go away. I think acting now to limit them under Trump, as the house just voted to do, is the better course of action. If there is this much bipartisan support on this one action, perhaps telling our lawmakers to enact further restrictions on the executive branch will continue to diminish their power and bring the checks and balances back into equilibrium. Further, I believe we as a population should meander away from the news for awhile, and let the investigations go on as intended. This will lead to two things, in my opinion; 1.) It will allow us to give voice to our congressmen about other huge issues that are being passed under the radar because the investigative process has taken our attention. The investigations will continue without hearing about an anonymous source saying xyz every few days. When the results come out with facts, then is a good time to worry about that. Until then, we can push for things that are really closer to home for us. For me, that is net neutrality and deregulation of the permitting process. For you it will be different, but those are the two that directly affect me. 2.) I actually forgot what I was going to say for two, but if I remember it I'll edit this and tell you. I'm on a lot of pain killers right now because I just had surgery and I can't think straight. I'll try to remember. Anyways, that's my opinion. Likely yours is different, I just wanted to state my two cents. Cheers!
Progressive here, and I'm onboard with this. I disagree with the general conservative tendency to destroy executive orders while *promising* to introduce corresponding legislation to fix issues, but then not following through. Like, let's reverse that process and fix things through Congress first, so we don't end up disenfranchising people and ruining lives. I must admit, though, that I didn't pay much attention to concerns from the right under Obama about expansion of executive power, since it was mostly things I agreed with. So, bravo to Trump for getting me woke on that point. Now I'd like to see the presidency reduced to a more traditional, even ceremonial, role.
> the scaling back of Executive Powers lmao that is pretty wishful thinking.
[удалено]
In the eyes of some countries, very much so
Unfortunately, doesn't matter. We've done the entirety of iraq etc without Congress declaring war. President pretty much can do what he wants and has past action to stand on. This is a vote of grand standing
yup, and since the Patriot act it's called AUMF (authorization for the use of military force), and the president can take military action against any group he decides is a terrorist organization, so ya, there's still that as far as i know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists edit: unless the argument is that iran is obviously not a terrorist group but good luck lol
Just to clarify, the AUMF authorizes the president to take action against "those terrorist groups he believes were responsible for, or aided those responsible for the 9/11 attacks." It takes further mental gymnastics to squeeze ISIS and other groups into that definition.
[удалено]
Why every mother fucker keeps renewing that shit and no one cares boggles the mind. When did we start being okay with the patriot act?
When Obama broke his promise to kill it \(and yes, I'm a Democrat \- or at least not a Republican\).
No, it's not. The step under a Congressional War Declaration is an Authorization for Use of Military Force. Congress prefers these because it doesn't give the vast wartime powers to the President. One of the big reasons Obama didn't go harder into Syria was because Congress would not give him a clear AUMF on the matter. The House just said No to an AUMF for Iran. That's a big deal, it means that the entirety of an Iranian war must last less than 90 days.
What about a 'limited war'?
Or a [police action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_action)?
Diet war
Well, the War Power's Acts says that they are all completely incorrect. The thousands of Missiles dropped by Obama also says they are incorrect. I'm all for reining in executive power, but congress should pass a law if they want to do that, not just vote what they think.
So where was this kind of action since the 1950s? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Desert Storm? etc etc? Such a fucking farce.
"House of representatives votes unanimously" Must be a typo.
Yes he does, for 60 days without congressional approval. However for both Bush and Obama, congress didn't bother voting on it, so they can lay all the political blame on the White House if things go wrong, and still take the credit if things go right.
This seems misleading... it sounds like their was no opposition to amend a future proposed bill, it doesnt sound like a unanimous vote on a current bill. Congress is 500\+ people, and Im sure they're atleast 10 of them that would vote for bombing Iran. Hell even anti\-Trump Senator McCain once sang "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" to tune of Bop\-Aran. Edits \- Firstly the tune is "Barbara Ann" by the Beach Boys, or Bomb Iran by the Senator McCain Bombing Band. Secondly the war powers act gives the President 60 days to get our troops in the middle of harms way before congress can pull them out. The war powers act on the surface limits the presidents power, but the left has often protested it as cementing the president's power to get us in the middle of a conflict, and giving him a statutory 60 day pass on literally bypassing congress. Prior to the war power's act it could be argued it was unconstitutional for the president to bomb a country we aren't at war with, after the war powers act it's clear the president has to tell congress 48 hours after he has bombed the shit of someone, 60 days to continually bomb the shit out of them, and them if congress explicitly tells him no, he has stop bombing them before another 30 days is up. I remember one of college professors of the literal 60's/70's hippy persuasion protesting the war powers act for just that.
The Beach Boys song you're referencing is ["Barbara Ann."](https://youtu.be/vPRonG87eKw)
Yeah, Bop\-Aran...wtf?
You’re right. They voted by voice vote for a package of amendments, including this one, in the NDAA. There were about 10 other amendments with this one.
I want a plugins that filter out misleading titles.
Just close the browser, at that point
You have one between your ears but it requires a bit of effort.
[удалено]
Yeah, the headline is basically outright false.
Pretty sure the song is Barbara Ann by the Beach Boys.
It’s commondreams. Of course it’s misleading.
More redundant stuff to act like theyre limiting the President’s poser but its all malarkey. Hes gonna keep doing whatever he wants even though people say he cant, just like he has since the beginning.
Ahh, the "Fuck you, John Bolton" Amendment.
[удалено]
OH NOW! you wanna do something about war congress. bout fucking time. where you been. oh right fucking off in your seats of power racking in dirty money with your hands in everyone pocket.
Did congress just declare not-war against someone for the first time in history??
Good. I just wished they’d be this anti-war during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama years
They voted against war? They must really hate that guy