Trump is the Commander-in-Chief!

[Wry Catcher]

Read and consider:

Trump pressed aides on Venezuela invasion, US official says

If as Commander-in-Chief is there a check and balance which would prevent such an order?

 

[DGS49]

Only Congress has the power to declare war.

Unlike Barry Soetoro, Trump will adhere to the Constitution.

 

[depotoo]

Unnamed again...

When will you guys get it? It doesn’t work for most anymore. People are getting it. Unnamed, anonymous, etc. is usually hooey.

 

[MarathonMike]

Smells like another Fake News turd brought to us by an unethical Press.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Only Congress has the power to declare war.

Unlike Barry Soetoro, Trump will adhere to the Constitution.

Unlike Bush I & II, Clinton and Reagan? The Resolution did not exist under Nixon and LBJ, JFK, IKE and Truman, and was passed to prevent another conflict such as Vietnam***.

Be real, and consider the war powers act - is it Constitutional? Given its use and impact in the past, I would hope its use under the question in the OP would be an abuse of power.

BTW, the link did not discuss a declaration of war; consider the impact of a POTUS using military power without authorization or oversight by The Congress, just because he has the authority under the Resolution. Considering the number of casualties on both sides of such a conflict, the war powers resolution needs to be clear, only a response to an immediate threat should allow such an act to be the decision of one man.

Considering an invasion suggests sending our troops into harms way for 60 days (+ 30 if he does not receive funding to continue the assault), the number of causalities on both sides in three months could be enormous.

Remember IED's in Iraq, and satchel bombs in Saigon? It doesn't take a modern army to inflict grievous injury and death on even a very powerful modern force.

***Consider: All the Previous Declarations of War - The Atlantic

 

[Wry Catcher]

Smells like another Fake News turd brought to us by an unethical Press.

It matters not if the link is true or fake, the question remains should any POTUS have the power given him by the Resolution?

What if Clinton or Obama was in power, would your opinion be the same?

I doubt it. But I'll give you and depotee the benefit of my very strong doubt.

 

[depotoo]

Smells like another Fake News turd brought to us by an unethical Press.

It matters not if the link is true or fake, the question remains should any POTUS have the power given him by the Resolution?

What if Clinton or Obama was in power, would your opinion be the same?

I doubt it. But I'll give you and depotee the benefit of my very strong doubt.

It’s irrelevant unless it happens. And by the way, Bush did get authorization from Congress.
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia

And if you were really concerned, other than as a partisan, you would have asked the question long before now. How many years have you been here?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Smells like another Fake News turd brought to us by an unethical Press.

It matters not if the link is true or fake, the question remains should any POTUS have the power given him by the Resolution?

What if Clinton or Obama was in power, would your opinion be the same?

I doubt it. But I'll give you and depotee the benefit of my very strong doubt.

It’s irrelevant unless it happens. And by the way, Bush did get authorization from Congress.
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia

And if you were really concerned, other than as a partisan, you would have asked the question long before now. How many years have you been here?

The topic on the war resolution has been discussed in the past, and I expressed my same concern then as I have today. Why today? Because I came across the article linked in the OP.

BTW, the question is not irrelevant, if we wait and allow any POTUS the power to send our troops into harms way on whim, we support despotism, not a republican form of government.

The War Resolution was passed in 1973, I believe it is time for The Congress to review it, so they have more say in events which do not involve an immediate and critical threat and military response.

POSTSCRIPT: Trump's order to send carrier task force into the Korean region was proper, though such brinkmanship, along with his bellicose rhetoric, went beyond risky - he and we were lucky he didn't create a shooting war with massive casualties.

 

[depotoo]

Yet, not one word when Obama did much more...

Smells like another Fake News turd brought to us by an unethical Press.

It matters not if the link is true or fake, the question remains should any POTUS have the power given him by the Resolution?

What if Clinton or Obama was in power, would your opinion be the same?

I doubt it. But I'll give you and depotee the benefit of my very strong doubt.

It’s irrelevant unless it happens. And by the way, Bush did get authorization from Congress.
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia

And if you were really concerned, other than as a partisan, you would have asked the question long before now. How many years have you been here?

The topic on the war resolution has been discussed in the past, and I expressed my same concern then as I have today. Why today? Because I came across the article linked in the OP.

BTW, the question is not irrelevant, if we wait and allow any POTUS the power to send our troops into harms way on whim, we support despotism, not a republican form of government.

The War Resolution was passed in 1973, I believe it is time for The Congress to review it, so they have more say in events which do not involve an immediate and critical threat and military response.

POSTSCRIPT: Trump's order to send carrier task force into the Korean region was proper, though such brinkmanship, along with his bellicose rhetoric, went beyond risky - he and we were lucky he didn't create a shooting war with massive casualties.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The topic on the war resolution has been discussed in the past, and I expressed my same concern then as I have today. Why today? Because I came across the article linked in the OP.

BTW, the question is not irrelevant, if we wait and allow any POTUS the power to send our troops into harms way on whim, we support despotism, not a republican form of government.

The War Resolution was passed in 1973, I believe it is time for The Congress to review it, so they have more say in events which do not involve an immediate and critical threat and military response.

POSTSCRIPT: Trump's order to send carrier task force into the Korean region was proper, though such brinkmanship, along with his bellicose rhetoric, went beyond risky - he and we were lucky he didn't create a shooting war with massive casualties.

Remember when POTUS told the Grand Puba over in North Korea that his "Button was bigger, and it worked"? Now if you seriously think he was threatening nuclear war, I have some real estate on the Island of Hawaii you have to consider buying...

This POTUS is unlike any other POTUS the world has ever seen... 75% street fighter, 25% diplomat... He wanted to garner the attention of Central and S America so he pontificated a little... No harm … No foul...


Dog-whistle politics. Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different, or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.
Dog-whistle politics - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

 

[whitehall]

Harry Truman sent Troops to Korea on an illegal executive order. JFK used the CIA to raise , train and equip an illegal invasion army that they abandoned at the Bay of Pigs. Bill Clinton bombed a cosmopolitan city in freaking Europe when he was caught with his pants down but today's left is hysterical about unfounded anonymous unverified claims by a mysterious "official" in the Trump administration. Go figure.

 

[DOTR]

Smells like another Fake News turd brought to us by an unethical Press.

It matters not if the link is true or fake, the question remains should any POTUS have the power given him by the Resolution?

What if Clinton or Obama was in power, would your opinion be the same?

I doubt it. But I'll give you and depotee the benefit of my very strong doubt.

Clinton and Obama did have the power. And used it to the hilt to kill.

 

[DOTR]

BTW, the question is not irrelevant, if we wait and allow any POTUS the power to send our troops into harms way on whim, we support despotism, not a republican form of government.

The War Resolution was passed in 1973, I believe it is time for The Congress to review it, so they have more say in events which do not involve an immediate and critical threat and military response.

POSTSCRIPT: Trump's order to send carrier task force into the Korean region was proper, though such brinkmanship, along with his bellicose rhetoric, went beyond risky - he and we were lucky he didn't create a shooting war with massive casualties.

The founders gave us an elected monarch with more power than the British monarch. Intentionally. The British monarch in 1776 had already lost his veto power, his commander in chief functions, his ability to appoint his own cabinet etc.
Donald Trump's hero, the great American Andrew Jackson, was accused of the same thing. But so were they all I think. Seward said "We elect a king for four years and give him absolute power within certain limits, which after all he can interpret for himself"

Some used their powers in a more imperial way than others. What part of the Constitution gave Lincoln the right to send troops into states and overthrow their governments? But absent a Congress or judiciary willing to stand up to him then whose to stop it?

I think the war powers act is terrible. But then again Congress is good at abrogating its job..to the the President..to the FBI..to the IRS.
And the separation of powers is working out for us now. We have criminal Congressmen and some rogue judges ordering a President to NOT execute the laws the Congress passed regarding immigration. Let that sink in. The Presidents job is to execute faithfully the laws of the United States. And we have congressmen and judges ordering him NOT to do so.
And he rightfully ignores them. Anything else would be unconstitutional.

 

[westwall]

Smells like another Fake News turd brought to us by an unethical Press.

It matters not if the link is true or fake, the question remains should any POTUS have the power given him by the Resolution?

What if Clinton or Obama was in power, would your opinion be the same?

I doubt it. But I'll give you and depotee the benefit of my very strong doubt.

It’s irrelevant unless it happens. And by the way, Bush did get authorization from Congress.
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia

And if you were really concerned, other than as a partisan, you would have asked the question long before now. How many years have you been here?

The topic on the war resolution has been discussed in the past, and I expressed my same concern then as I have today. Why today? Because I came across the article linked in the OP.

BTW, the question is not irrelevant, if we wait and allow any POTUS the power to send our troops into harms way on whim, we support despotism, not a republican form of government.

The War Resolution was passed in 1973, I believe it is time for The Congress to review it, so they have more say in events which do not involve an immediate and critical threat and military response.

POSTSCRIPT: Trump's order to send carrier task force into the Korean region was proper, though such brinkmanship, along with his bellicose rhetoric, went beyond risky - he and we were lucky he didn't create a shooting war with massive casualties.

Yes because the continuous appeasement bullcrap you espouse has been so damned successful that NK now has nukes! Great job dimwits!

 

[DOTR]

Liberals never understood something (or maybe they do?)The more divided a country or realm or empire or state the more intensely it leans on a strong man. That has always been true.

 

[HenryBHough]

President Trump indeed IS America's Commander-in-Chief.

Failed "president" Obama, OTOH, was America's first (and we might pray only ever) Apologist-in-Chief.

See the difference?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Smells like another Fake News turd brought to us by an unethical Press.

It matters not if the link is true or fake, the question remains should any POTUS have the power given him by the Resolution?

What if Clinton or Obama was in power, would your opinion be the same?

I doubt it. But I'll give you and depotee the benefit of my very strong doubt.

It’s irrelevant unless it happens. And by the way, Bush did get authorization from Congress.
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia

And if you were really concerned, other than as a partisan, you would have asked the question long before now. How many years have you been here?

The topic on the war resolution has been discussed in the past, and I expressed my same concern then as I have today. Why today? Because I came across the article linked in the OP.

BTW, the question is not irrelevant, if we wait and allow any POTUS the power to send our troops into harms way on whim, we support despotism, not a republican form of government.

The War Resolution was passed in 1973, I believe it is time for The Congress to review it, so they have more say in events which do not involve an immediate and critical threat and military response.

POSTSCRIPT: Trump's order to send carrier task force into the Korean region was proper, though such brinkmanship, along with his bellicose rhetoric, went beyond risky - he and we were lucky he didn't create a shooting war with massive casualties.

Yes because the continuous appeasement bullcrap you espouse has been so damned successful that NK now has nukes! Great job dimwits!

What is your solution, another Korean war? Trump's a dumb shit, Kim doesn't need to send a nuclear bomb via missiles, all he needs to do is pass on small dirty bombs to be set in our cities by ME terrorists. Easy to do so since Trump is focused on families with children and considers N. Korea no longer a threat.

 

[westwall]

Smells like another Fake News turd brought to us by an unethical Press.

It matters not if the link is true or fake, the question remains should any POTUS have the power given him by the Resolution?

What if Clinton or Obama was in power, would your opinion be the same?

I doubt it. But I'll give you and depotee the benefit of my very strong doubt.

It’s irrelevant unless it happens. And by the way, Bush did get authorization from Congress.
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia

And if you were really concerned, other than as a partisan, you would have asked the question long before now. How many years have you been here?

The topic on the war resolution has been discussed in the past, and I expressed my same concern then as I have today. Why today? Because I came across the article linked in the OP.

BTW, the question is not irrelevant, if we wait and allow any POTUS the power to send our troops into harms way on whim, we support despotism, not a republican form of government.

The War Resolution was passed in 1973, I believe it is time for The Congress to review it, so they have more say in events which do not involve an immediate and critical threat and military response.

POSTSCRIPT: Trump's order to send carrier task force into the Korean region was proper, though such brinkmanship, along with his bellicose rhetoric, went beyond risky - he and we were lucky he didn't create a shooting war with massive casualties.

Yes because the continuous appeasement bullcrap you espouse has been so damned successful that NK now has nukes! Great job dimwits!

What is your solution, another Korean war? Trump's a dumb shit, Kim doesn't need to send a nuclear bomb via missiles, all he needs to do is pass on small dirty bombs to be set in our cities by ME terrorists. Easy to do so since Trump is focused on families with children and considers N. Korea no longer a threat.

If your hero's hadn't been such utter morons, the North Koreans would have never obtained nukes. That's the point. Your hero's were so fucking professional they helped a lunatic country obtain nukes. So, your feigned concern is simply idiotic. North Korea MUST be disarmed. If it weren't for your so called "professionals" it wouldn't even be an issue, but, because your "professionals" were such abject dipshits it is we that have to deal with this little monster.

As usual, incompetent boobs, set up the wars that the following generations have to deal with. Hopefully the fat turd realizes that a happy life as a dictator is better than a short life as a nuclear terrorist.

Time will tell.

 

[Zander]

FakeNews designed to create fear.

Some fools fall for it every time.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes because the continuous appeasement bullcrap you espouse has been so damned successful that NK now has nukes! Great job dimwits![/QUOTE]

What is your solution, another Korean war? Trump's a dumb shit, Kim doesn't need to send a nuclear bomb via missiles, all he needs to do is pass on small dirty bombs to be set in our cities by ME terrorists. Easy to do so since Trump is focused on families with children and considers N. Korea no longer a threat.[/QUOTE]






If your hero's hadn't been such utter morons, the North Koreans would have never obtained nukes. That's the point. Your hero's were so fucking professional they helped a lunatic country obtain nukes. So, your feigned concern is simply idiotic. North Korea MUST be disarmed. If it weren't for your so called "professionals" it wouldn't even be an issue, but, because your "professionals" were such abject dipshits it is we that have to deal with this little monster.

As usual, incompetent boobs, set up the wars that the following generations have to deal with. Hopefully the fat turd realizes that a happy life as a dictator is better than a short life as a nuclear terrorist.

Time will tell.[/QUOTE]

My hero's? They are all dead, you can read their names on the Vietnam Wall in The District. I don't want anyone to carry coffins which I did too often in my youth, especially when a draft dodging POS sends them to their grave.