My point.
yep, agreed to a peace deal to stop korean's from dying from a useless war. BTW, it was the same country, russia is not Ukraine. Never has been.
yep, another useless war, you should be picking up on the facts that wars aren't winnable.
yep, not sure your point, war is useless.
Thats not what Cortez, Roosevelt, Washington, or Putin thought.
some battles were fought centuries ago. Not my concern.
Putin was centuries ago?
When he goes to a foreign country literally as the president is conducting his foreign policy in an attempt to end a war and threatens to undermine the president's Constitutional authority to conduct said policy, there's a problem. The democrats did something very similar when they met the Zman before he went to the White House and urged him to reject the president's plan.
The side that doesn’t want a nuclear war. Really not that hard to pickJust trying to figure out which side you flip-floppers are on.
Congress members have the legal right to visit foreign nations where we have business. We have been supporting Ukraine's war since it started.
A good negotiator vs not.
They might have a legal right, but they should NOT be undercutting the president's foreign policy. That's not their job, any more than it would be for a general to let a potential adversary know before we launched a surprise attack.
Russia now has Crimea and Western Ukraine. That includes oil reserves, a major port, and rare earth minerals. While the US has switched sides, Europe is alarmed and ramping up. It would be strategically smart to call a truce.
His foreign policy is to give Putin an agreement without protections for Ukraine? Its treason to say we shouldn't do that? Where in the First Amendment is that the case? Please cite it specifically.
I keep repeating that they may technically have legal grounds for stating opposition to the president, but there is a problem when they actively undermine the president's foreign policy authority. The legislative branch does not conduct foreign policy, the executive branch does. They are overstepping their authority.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
just the ones you referenced. ye of little brain matter.
The new president's position differs with that of the USA, for the past two decades, and even last year....just months ago. Congress has funded Ukraine through legislation, and can go to Ukraine to see if it has worked well, need more, or need less....
The 1st does have limits on it, it's not absolute. A soldier, for instance, who meets with an enemy soldier on the battlefield and gives up information is not protected by it. Those with a security clearance are not protected by it if they divulge information they are not supposed to divulge. Now, a member of Congress who goes to a foreign country and undermines the president's Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy? I don't know that it's been adjudicated by the SC. I think it would be an interesting case for them to take.
You become a traitor when you go to a foreign country with which we are at war and undermine our country's foreign policy. We are not at war with Ukraine, so technically at least, the congresscritter is not a traitor, but certainly is not acting in the best interests of our country, and ultimately his own career. What happens if we end up at war with Ukraine in the near future? He's not going to be trusted with anything sensitive as he's already demonstrated he has no problem subverting official foreign policy.
Who is the USA you are referring to? name someone.
The USA means the USA as a Nation, has supported Ukraine....
it falls under the fire in a theatre position, since it undermines security. try again.
He should have requested permission to go from the president first, not to undermine the peace deal negotiations. That's what makes it traitorous. If he undermines that process, is illegal. And he wouldn't be the first military person arrested.
The president has the Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy. He has the authority to negotiate and sign treaties with other countries. IOW, he has the authority to change foreign policy, whether congresscritters who hate his guts irrationally like it or not.
