1942

[SassyIrishLass]

CHILDISH? Do you really wanna go there?

Bye

 

[TNHarley]

What I figured.

 

[TNHarley]

Every time a partisan hack puts me ignore, god krishna puts a gold star next to my name.

 

[Billiejeens]

Like I said...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I have been against bombings by anyone for years. You know that.
I am actually anti-war. I dont just put on a red or blue hat and pretend I am.

I wasn't referring to you TN. You've been conistent. I know your stances.

 

[YoursTruly]

Iran’s ‘totally obliterated’ nuclear program grew back faster than Trump’s ear.

 

[YoursTruly]

I have been against bombings by anyone for years. You know that.
I am actually anti-war. I dont just put on a red or blue hat and pretend I am.

You misspelled "collar."

 

[Kruska]

That was the last time Congress wrote a declaration of war. NINETEEN FOURTY TWO.
How many wars have we been involved with since? You people only ***** about "mUh cOnGrEsS" when its the "other side" doing the crap.
You are all so disingenuous it is nauseating.

The Last Formal Declaration of War - JSTOR Daily

The last time Congress formally declared war was in World War II.

daily.jstor.org

Delegation of powers is not in the constitution. Anywhere. Jefferson spoke of it, but he was also referring to non legislative power. Guess what declarations of war is?
You guys don't really care about the constitution. At all.
Real liberalism is dead.
Real conservatism is dead.
Neoconservatism is alive and well.

IMO. your headline is meaningless - The decisive factor that rules US military use, is the War Powers Act. - specifically introduced to circumvent Congressional approval. - for up to 90 days.

The War Powers Act, however requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing US military into action
Did TACO do that?
Did he do it when he ordered the strike on Qasem Soleimani in 2020?

E.g. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 2002. (AUMF), which authorized the President of the USA, to use armed forces to defend national security and enforce UN resolutions.

BTW;
The TACO administration stated that the attack on Qasem Soleimani was carried out in accordance with the War Powers Resolution under the AUMF 2002.The legalities of using the AUMF for endless conflicts, has been a source of debate.

In-spite of the "listed prohibitions", in 2013 regarding Syria, Obama, and later U.S. President TACO introduced ground forces into Syria, and the United States became fully engaged in the country.

In summary - none of the US parties gives a shit about a US President enacting a war or an attack on other countries - as such, but only in view of opposition to the respective President (party). They are ALL the same - when it comes to protect US hegemonic interests, no matter if legal or not.

 

[dblack]

Bye

Bye!

 

[JWBooth]

you prefer scamala and the transgender women haters. hilarious.

that's pretty retarded, even for you

 

[Chuz Life]

By saying there should have been a declaration of war? By saying the president shouldnt have abused his powers?
Yeah, im sure thats irans argument, too.

Every time a partisan hack puts me ignore, god krishna puts a gold star next to my name.

So, where are we at with impeachment proceedings on this?

Are you thinking of just Trump?

Or Trump and the whole gang of eight?

 

[TNHarley]

So, where are we at with impeachment proceedings on this?

Are you thinking of just Trump?

Or Trump and the whole gang of eight?

View attachment 1225874

You have been the only one to mention impeachment. My OP is mostly attacking the hacks, and the actual constitution. Im not just picking on trump.

 

[TNHarley]

Idk why, when I talk about the whole system, people think im just calling out one person. If I am doing that, it will be clear.
Trump is just like all the others. They are all in the same group. He does exactly what they do, despite his rhetoric. And the lame ass excuses from his sycophants

 

[Chuz Life]

You have been the only one to mention impeachment. My OP is mostly attacking the hacks, and the actual constitution. Im not just picking on trump.

But you believe he and possibly the entire gang of eight violated the Constitution.

Correct?

 

[TNHarley]

But you believe he and possibly the entire gang of eight violated the Constitution.

Correct?

Of course. The entire government has been doing it for a long time. Every change of congress. Every change of president. And I have stated my case on why. And you didnt even really disagree with me on that.

 

[Chuz Life]

Of course. The entire government has been doing it for a long time. Every change of congress. Every change of president. And I have stated my case on why. And you didnt even really disagree with me on that.

If only you had the same adherence to the principles established and the letter of the law of the Constitution for personhood and the equal protections of our laws that you do for this.

I digress.

I already explained how and why I believe (and the SCOTUS) holds Trumps actions to be permissible under the Constitution.

You might claim the same for personhood and when a child's rights and personhood should be protected.

I expect you would.

But the principle set forth in the Constitution is just as clear in one as it is in the other. All of it established under ever changing contexts and even the SCOTUS (e.g Roe is gone) evolves over time.

 

[TNHarley]

If only you had the same adherence to the principles established and the letter of the law of the Constitution for personhood and the equal protections of our laws that you do for this.

I digress.

I already explained how and why I believe (and the SCOTUS) holds Trumps actions to be permissible under the Constitution.

You might claim the same for personhood and when a child's rights and personhood should be protected.

I expect you would.

But the principle set forth in the Constitution is just as clear in one as it is in the other. All of it established under ever changing contexts and even the SCOTUS (e.g Roe is gone) evolves over time.

I dont believe in that pinko living document nonsense. There is a way to change the constitution. A correct way. A republic type of way.

 

[Chuz Life]

I dont believe in that pinko living document nonsense. There is a way to change the constitution. A correct way. A republic type of way.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

It has never been established or held that any and all military actions are tantamount to "declarations of war."

For the sake on an exercise on this, imagine a future congress actually making a declaration of War. But the President refuses to put the troops into action.

Constitutional crisis?

Not really.

The point is, the President is the commander of the military and he doesn't need congressional approval to take military actions that fall short of any all out "declarations" of war.

If the President abuses that power. .

Impeach.

 

[BrokeLoser]

LMAO yeah right.
You want to talk about globalism while your orange leftist jesus is policing the world. While he tries to set up a new GLOBAL "peace" program.
Moonbat.

I don't think you know what globalism looks like...A globalist certainly wouldn't blow up ragheads and tell Mexico's people to go phuck themselves. A globalist believes America belongs to the world because Emma Lazarus wrote a poem once. They believe multiculturalism is good for a nation. They're the woke toxically empathetic fools behind everything you ***** about.

MisterBeale
buttercup

 

[Stryder50]

I have been against bombings by anyone for years. You know that.
I am actually anti-war. I dont just put on a red or blue hat and pretend I am.

In other words you don't think aggression, invasion, oppression of neighboring nations should be resisted and Evil should just get to reign free.

Gotcha.

Hopefully you are the next target/victim of such.