AOC said bombing Iran was unconstitutional. Is she right?

[struth]

Examining Whether Trump Had the Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran​

In the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s decision to bomb three of Iran’s nuclear facilities, numerous Democrats claimed the president’s actions were unconstitutional and a violation of the War Powers Resolution.

It is a contentious and hotly debated issue not only in Congress but also in academia. Constitutional experts told us those who are claiming the president’s decision was unconstitutional may be correct according to an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. But Congresses over the last several decades have allowed presidents some latitude to engage militarily without prior consent from lawmakers.

“A lot of people over the next few days are going to argue with confidence that President Trump violated, or didn’t violate, the Constitution when he bombed Iran over the weekend without congressional authorization,” Jack Landman Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School and nonresident senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a June 23 op-ed headlined, “Was the Iran Strike Constitutional?”

“You might think that the Constitution would provide a clear answer to such a momentous question. But it doesn’t,” Goldsmith wrote.

Although the military hostilities involving Iran, Israel and the U.S. have ended, numerous Democrats have continued to press the issue, and have proposed legislation to try to rein in the president’s military reach.

Examining Whether Trump Had the Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran - FactCheck.org

In the aftermath of President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three of Iran's nuclear facilities, numerous Democrats claimed the president's actions were unconstitutional and a violation of the War Powers Resolution. It is a contentious and hotly debated issue not only in Congress but also in...

www.factcheck.org

IMO, ambiguity over such a momentous question needs to be resolved.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress holds the power “To declare War.” Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the president as the commander in chief of the armed forces. So, at what point and under what circumstances would the president need congressional approval before launching military activity?

“I think this is a tough question because practice has strayed so far from the text and original understanding of the Constitution,” Kermit Roosevelt, a professor and constitutional expert at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, told us via email.

Repub Reps Khanna and Massie have introduced a resolution on the specific matter of attacks on Iran. Should it be expanded to give Congress sign off authority on any strike? How much would that hamper a prez's ability to respond quickly if military action were called for?

No she’s wrong

 

[berg80]

MSN

Peter Shane, a leading scholar in U.S. constitutional law and adjunct professor at New York University School of Law, told us via email that it is “difficult to give a definitive answer on constitutionality because there is so much disagreement about how the Constitution should be interpreted with regard to the unilateral presidential deployment of military force. For originalists, the answer would seem a straightforward, ‘No.’ Under the most persuasive reading of the Founding era, the Constitution does not authorize Presidents to deploy military force abroad without advance congressional authorization. As to Iran, there was none.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Propaganda designed to enrich and empower the MIC, and impoverish Americans. THINK!

How many nations has Iran unilaterally attacked over the last 300 years? Now compare that number to the Land of the Free in just the last 25 years?

In Iran's ‘forever war’ against the US, regime has targeted and killed Americans worldwide

Iran's resumé against America since the 1979 revolution includes taking hostages, playing a role in the Beirut embassy bombings, funding Taliban and Iraqi proxies and assassination attempts.

www.foxnews.com

 

[gipper]

Clearly there's a lot of opportunity for grey areas that need to be clarified.

Not according to constitutional experts. The potus is limited to using the military without congressional support only if an attack is made on the homeland or is imminent. He has no authority to attack any nation.

Justin Amash is an expert and has written extensively on this issue.

 

[gipper]

In Iran's ‘forever war’ against the US, regime has targeted and killed Americans worldwide

Iran's resumé against America since the 1979 revolution includes taking hostages, playing a role in the Beirut embassy bombings, funding Taliban and Iraqi proxies and assassination attempts.

www.foxnews.com

Fox News? Oh please. Do you not know it is entirely a propagandist organ for the state?

The number one terrorist state in the world is obviously the US government closely followed by Israel.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Fox News? Oh please. Do you not know it is entirely a propagandist organ for the state?

The number one terrorist state in the world is obviously the US government closely followed by Israel.

3 US troops are killed and 25 injured in drone strike by Iran-backed militia in Jordan, U.S. says

They were the first U.S. fatalities in months of attacks on American forces across the Middle East by Iranian-backed militias amid the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

whyy.org

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Fox News? Oh please. Do you not know it is entirely a propagandist organ for the state?

The number one terrorist state in the world is obviously the US government closely followed by Israel.

Iran has attacked US troops 83 times since Biden became president

The U.S. military was unable to provide information on how often Iran attacked U.S. troops during previous administrations.

taskandpurpose.com

 

[gipper]

Why might that happen like it did on 9-11? Could it be because of actions this past week? Do you think we should be the only country allowed to retaliate?

Remember, we called those who were trying to drive us from their countries "Terrorists".

You’re expecting logical thinking from people who have no ability to think logically.

 

[pknopp]

You’re expecting logical thinking from people who have no ability to think logically.

Some day a future historian will write a paper on how it was that so many people were brainwashed.

 

[berg80]

Not according to constitutional experts.

Apparently, constitutional experts disagree. See post #22.

 

[Meathead]

My bet is AOC is much more familiar with the Constitution than the guy who never reads anything and eschews his PDB's.

She may no more than you; dunno, but you're both dingbats.

 

[berg80]

Some day a future historian will write a paper on how it was that so many people were brainwashed.

I'm sure that paper has already been written............about the Third Reich.

 

[j-mac]

Iran was no threat to the US.

That is just plain false.

And, frankly I am shocked you would make that comment

 

[j-mac]

I'm sure that paper has already been written............about the Third Reich.

What an assholish thing to say….

/thread

 

[gipper]

Apparently, constitutional experts disagree. See post #22.

If you think the Founders who wrote the Constitution, which is supposed to be the preeminent law of the land (obviously it’s ignored by the government today) granted the potus the authority to unilaterally attack another nation, you’re deceiving yourself.

 

[struth]

Examining Whether Trump Had the Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran​

In the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s decision to bomb three of Iran’s nuclear facilities, numerous Democrats claimed the president’s actions were unconstitutional and a violation of the War Powers Resolution.

It is a contentious and hotly debated issue not only in Congress but also in academia. Constitutional experts told us those who are claiming the president’s decision was unconstitutional may be correct according to an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. But Congresses over the last several decades have allowed presidents some latitude to engage militarily without prior consent from lawmakers.

“A lot of people over the next few days are going to argue with confidence that President Trump violated, or didn’t violate, the Constitution when he bombed Iran over the weekend without congressional authorization,” Jack Landman Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School and nonresident senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a June 23 op-ed headlined, “Was the Iran Strike Constitutional?”

“You might think that the Constitution would provide a clear answer to such a momentous question. But it doesn’t,” Goldsmith wrote.

Although the military hostilities involving Iran, Israel and the U.S. have ended, numerous Democrats have continued to press the issue, and have proposed legislation to try to rein in the president’s military reach.

Examining Whether Trump Had the Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran - FactCheck.org

In the aftermath of President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three of Iran's nuclear facilities, numerous Democrats claimed the president's actions were unconstitutional and a violation of the War Powers Resolution. It is a contentious and hotly debated issue not only in Congress but also in...

www.factcheck.org

IMO, ambiguity over such a momentous question needs to be resolved.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress holds the power “To declare War.” Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the president as the commander in chief of the armed forces. So, at what point and under what circumstances would the president need congressional approval before launching military activity?

“I think this is a tough question because practice has strayed so far from the text and original understanding of the Constitution,” Kermit Roosevelt, a professor and constitutional expert at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, told us via email.

Repub Reps Khanna and Massie have introduced a resolution on the specific matter of attacks on Iran. Should it be expanded to give Congress sign off authority on any strike? How much would that hamper a prez's ability to respond quickly if military action were called for?

No she’s wrong

I'm sure that paper has already been written............about the Third Reich.

It has, and yet we have dembots still today.

 

[gipper]

Some day a future historian will write a paper on how it was that so many people were brainwashed.

It’s obvious to me. Americans are the most propagandized people on the planet. Some of us can overlook a lifetime of propaganda and some never do.

 

[struth]

If you think the Founders who wrote the Constitution, which is supposed to be the preeminent law of the land (obviously it’s ignored by the government today) granted the potus the authority to unilaterally attack another nation, you’re deceiving yourself.

All one has to do is look to one of the Founders, Jefferson, never got a declaration of war from Congress for the Barbary Wars


Throughout history Presidents, from Jefferson to Obama, have used the military without first getting a declaration of war. Not every military action is war.

 

[pknopp]

I'm sure that paper has already been written............about the Third Reich.

Some people need to read it.

 

[hadit]

Clearly there's a lot of opportunity for grey areas that need to be clarified.

Kind of late to be doing that now, don't you think? Are we going to hold all the other presidents liable for the American lives they cost with their attacks on other nations, not bothering to get Congressional approval?

The answer to that, in case anyone is wondering, is an emphatic NO! This only applies to Orange Man, because reasons, and feelz.