pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 91,704
- 38,727
- 2,250
Its really not about me. Its about the masses that accept and vote for things they had argued against when their party isn't in power.
AOC said bombing Iran was unconstitutional. Is she right?
- Thread starter berg80
- Start date
Its really not about me. Its about the masses that accept and vote for things they had argued against when their party isn't in power.
I don't disagree, I've read a lot of dembot post about it here...most of you think or thought it was a constitutional right.
LeftofLeft
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2011
- 29,120
- 19,913
- 1,405
That is subject to interpretation and analysis; much of which is done in hindsight. If it is deemed that there was no threat to our national security, the President’s actions and judgment can be called to question but I still don’t think he would be out of the Constitution. As Commander-in-Chief, he took a military action but did not declare war.
Nonsense. In the span of seventy-two hours, the Trump administration has managed to simultaneously bomb Iran, fracture its own political coalition, humiliate itself on the global stage, and vaporize billions of dollars in advanced munitions, all while declaring victory. It takes a certain kind of brilliance to orchestrate a fiasco this comprehensive.
We begin with what Trump insists on calling a “complete and total obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
Operation Midnight Hammer: The $6 Billion Empty Hole
As Trump’s cartoonish Iran strike unravels, America stumbles from world leader to Netanyahu’s punch-drunk bouncer, while Xi Jinping waits for his next desperate phone call.
marygeddry.substack.com
Harry Dresden
Only Adamantium Member
well that has been going on for quite a while...
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,336
- 43,671
- 2,605
Not that many anymore.
Yes, not that many want to come here illegally anymore....because they won't get free healthcare and room and board. They will be deported
Vastly, different then the prior admin
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 91,704
- 38,727
- 2,250
Sure. Sadly.
That is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 91,704
- 38,727
- 2,250
And yet it isn't.
We were talking about the lame position democrats have taken on the military action and why the weak insist that pointing out problems equates to supporting the opposite position.
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 91,704
- 38,727
- 2,250
A question was asked. I answered that question. Neither party have any principles outside of winning the next election. Thats why things like this happens.
Harry Dresden
Only Adamantium Member
if trump wasnt on them there would be many who want to live in this "terrorist" racist nation....
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,336
- 43,671
- 2,605
No one with wealth and intelligence wants to immigrate here.
Independent thinker
Diamond Member
- Oct 15, 2015
- 38,483
- 35,115
- 2,788
Well, since they didn't vote to impeach Trump over it, I guess it was constitutional. Therefore, even democrats believe she was wrong.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?
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,667
- 87,111
- 2,645
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...
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?
Technically yes
We're 5-0 when we declared war and 0-5 since Korea.
It's done intentionally to kill morale
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
It's clear that the Framers' intent was that Congress alone can authorize the use of any military force.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,719
- 92,314
- 2,605
Trump knows the answer.
He knows.
But he has long proven he thinks the Constitution is his personal toilet paper.
SassyIrishLass
Diamond Member
- Mar 31, 2009
- 113,772
- 101,601
- 3,605
- Banned
- #79
Gee if only Obama has understood the intent, eh? Ya comical dip shit
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,719
- 92,314
- 2,605
When Obama was going to bomb Syria for their use of WMDs on their own people, Donald Trump tweeted Obama needed congressional approval.
A Republican congressman threatened to submit an impeachment proceeding if Obama didn't get congressional approval.
You know what Obama did?
He got congressional approval.
Now you blazing hypocrites want to claim Trump doesn't need congressional approval to bomb Iran even though he himself said his predecessor did.
How DO you stand the stench of your own hypocrisy?
How does Trump?
Similar threads
