Rep. Massie Debates Iran War Powers Resolution

[BackAgain]

The constitutionality of the wars powers can be debated and argued about for the next century.

Ok.

What can't be argued is that it's 100% against our Constitutional Republic.

That can indeed be argued against. It’s untrue.

It's why in the constitution, congress has to declare war before ONE PERSON, the potus, can take the country into war.

Wrong. The objective is to be able to respond promptly without requiring Congress to engage in any time consuming process. Emergency issues can and sometimes do arise.

535 congressmen, elected from all over the US are the ones who are supposed to make that decision. Not one man.

Nope. The “decision” is to DECLARE war is theirs.

The obligation and duty to deal with imminent threats is left to the President — as the Commander in Chief.

 

[TNHarley]

Ok.


That can indeed be argued against. It’s untrue.

Wrong. The objective is to be able to respond promptly without requiring Congress to engage in any time consuming process. Emergency issues can and sometimes do arise.

Nope. The “decision” is to DECLARE war is theirs.

The obligation and duty to deal with imminent threats is left to the President — as the Commander in Chief.

One must remember, our founders had no intention of us toppling soverign leaders, and invading countries with no imminent threat.
Thomas Jefferson said congress had no authority to delegate its legislative powers away. Which is what the WPA is. A delegation of legislative power.
Alexander Hamilton said only congress can cause us to go to war. If we were to be attacked, there would be no need for congress to declare war. The president would have full authority to defend us.
Our constitution is not a living document, and thats what you are trying to do. Make it living.
We have an amendment process. If people want one person to decide if we got to war or not, then lets do an amendment. Let the people decide.
Personally, I think its unheard of to leave war to one person if we had not been attacked or invaded.

 

[BackAgain]

One must remember, our founders had no intention of us toppling soverign leaders, and invading countries with no imminent threat.
Thomas Jefferson said congress had no authority to delegate its legislative powers away. Which is what the WPA is. A delegation of legislative power.
Alexander Hamilton said only congress can cause us to go to war. If we were to be attacked, there would be no need for congress to declare war. The president would have full authority to defend us.
Our constitution is not a living document, and thats what you are trying to do. Make it living.
We have an amendment process. If people want one person to decide if we got to war or not, then lets do an amendment. Let the people decide.
Personally, I think its unheard of to leave war to one person if we had not been attacked or invaded.

Yes. The threat was imminent.

Hope that helps you re-think your position.

 

[Godboy]

One must remember, our founders had no intention of us toppling soverign leaders, and invading countries with no imminent threat.
Thomas Jefferson said congress had no authority to delegate its legislative powers away. Which is what the WPA is. A delegation of legislative power.
Alexander Hamilton said only congress can cause us to go to war. If we were to be attacked, there would be no need for congress to declare war. The president would have full authority to defend us.
Our constitution is not a living document, and thats what you are trying to do. Make it living.
We have an amendment process. If people want one person to decide if we got to war or not, then lets do an amendment. Let the people decide.
Personally, I think its unheard of to leave war to one person if we had not been attacked or invaded.

Israel was going to attack Iran. The US rightfully knew that Iran would respond by attacking US bases in the region. It was absolutely an imminent threat to our soldiers.

You can say that they are abusing the wording of the law, and that they are just using Israel's imminent attack as a convenient excuse, but thats the law. If you dont like it, change the law, if you have enough votes, which you dont, so how about you just shut up?

 

[wamose]

Never trust a modern Democrat to interpret our constitution.

 

[TNHarley]

Yes. The threat was imminent.

Hope that helps you re-think your position.

No it wasnt

 

[TNHarley]

Israel was going to attack Iran. The US rightfully knew that Iran would respond by attacking US bases in the region. It was absolutely an imminent threat to our soldiers.

You can say that they are abusing the wording of the law, and that they are just using Israel's imminent attack as a convenient excuse, but thats the law. If you dont like it, change the law, if you have enough votes, which you dont, so how about you just shut up?

Blaah blah blah. Make shit up if you want.
The constitution is the law of the land, boot licker.

 

[SaxonJackson]

<~~~~~~~~~~>​

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the sole power to formally declare war and fund military action, while the President, as Commander in Chief, commands the armed forces. While presidents often initiate military operations without prior authorization, legal consensus holds that congressional approval is required for sustained, official war, a power balanced by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
While only Congress can officially declare war, presidents have frequently used military force without explicit authorization, citing their authority to protect national interests.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate both run by Democrats who overrode a veto by Richard Nixon, a Republican. So today's Neocon Party walks hand-in-hand with the Democrat Party of 1973.

"The War Powers Act of 1973 was passed by the United States Congress, specifically the House of Representatives and the Senate, overriding a veto by President Richard Nixon. It was enacted on November 7, 1973, to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. forces to armed conflict without congressional approval."

 

[protectionist]

War powers are very specific in the US constitution. But our politicians now days, on both sides, don't seem to care about the constitution. Or the things that are supposed to keep us a Constitutional Republic instead of a democracy or anything else.

Here, Massie lines out the president constitutional authority to wage war. And congress's responsibility to give the president authorization.

There are 3 constitutional conditions in the 1973 war powers act that must me met. And so far, none have been met. And yet Trump (and other presidents) have been allowed to wage war just because they want to.

Trump doesn't like the idea of the USA being Constitutional Republic anymore than the democrats did.

There's some very important information in Massie's speech, pertaining to the constitution.

Maybe this knothead doesn't know the mission, but I think most Americans do.

• Iran has killed hundreds of American military members (241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing alone)
• Financed attacks against US embassies
• Plotted assassinations on US soil
• Attempted kidnapping of US citizens
• Fired ballistic missles at US troops (for decades)
• Orchestrated terrorism attacks against Americans
• Worked to created nuclear bomb
• Chants "Death to America" in government chambers
• Iran's goal - elimination of Israel & the US, and world domination of Islam in correlation with the Koran

This klutz also doesn't seem to know (or pretends to not know) the facts about the War Powers act.

The War Powers Act 0f 1973 requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action (he did), and limits military engagement to 60 days without Congressional approval, + an addition 30 day withdrawl period. However this withdrawl period only begins when ground troops have been in the attacked country. So far there have not been any.

This gives the president to May 28 to continue with Operation Epic Fury, without congressional approval, which it is likely he will get.

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[protectionist]

The constitution is the law of the land, boot licker.

And US laws.

 

[protectionist]

One must remember, our founders had no intention of us toppling soverign leaders, and invading countries with no imminent threat.

You don't seem a have a working knowledge of radical Islam.

 

[BackAgain]

No it wasnt

Yes. It was.

 

[TNHarley]

Yes. It was.

k

 

[dblack]

The War Powers Act of 1973 was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate both run by Democrats who overrode a veto by Richard Nixon, a Republican. So today's Neocon Party walks hand-in-hand with the Democrat Party of 1973.

"The War Powers Act of 1973 was passed by the United States Congress, specifically the House of Representatives and the Senate, overriding a veto by President Richard Nixon. It was enacted on November 7, 1973, to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. forces to armed conflict without congressional approval."

It's different when they do it.

 

[BackAgain]

k

I respect your capitulation.

 

[TNHarley]

I respect your capitulation.

k

 

[BackAgain]

k

Elemenoh.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Suppose for the sake of argument, that the TDS folk are correct in that Trump's actions in the Iran conflict violate both the War Powers Act and the U.S. Constitution.

Now what?

If Trump's current actions violate both the War Powers Act and the U.S. Constitution, he is certainly not the first to do it. The WPA was aimed specifically at Nixon's continuing U.S. fighting in the War in Vietnam. Since then, every single president who had cognitive autonomy has sent troops into harms way in action against another country.

Every. Single. President.

What happened to them as a result? Nothing. Nada. Nichts. Bupkis.

TDS folk, what do you want to happen to Trump? More to the point, why should anything happen to Trump and not to every other president who was in possession of his faculties during his administration?

 

[TNHarley]

Suppose for the sake of argument, that the TDS folk are correct in that Trump's actions in the Iran conflict violate both the War Powers Act and the U.S. Constitution.

Now what?

If Trump's current actions violate both the War Powers Act and the U.S. Constitution, he is certainly not the first to do it. The WPA was aimed specifically at Nixon's continuing U.S. fighting in the War in Vietnam. Since then, every single president who had cognitive autonomy has sent troops into harms way in action against another country.

Every. Single. President.

What happened to them as a result? Nothing. Nada. Nichts. Bupkis.

TDS folk, what do you want to happen to Trump? More to the point, why should anything happen to Trump and not to every other president who was in possession of his faculties during his administration?

Im not TDS but I will bite.
I would love some accountability, but what about all the other presidents? We cant punish them now.
The practice should just be stopped. This has been our foreign policy since WW2. Its BS. Its time to Make America Great Again.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Im not TDS but I will bite.
I would love some accountability, but what about all the other presidents? We cant punish them now.
The practice should just be stopped. This has been our foreign policy since WW2. Its BS. Its time to Make America Great Again.

Start with Impeaching and removing Obama for his actions absent declarations of war. Then Bush the younger, then Clinton.

If even a Republican majority Congress and Senate will not do that, why should any president worry?

Our leaders in two out of three branches of government are treating the constitutional requirement for a declaration of war by the Senate like towns treat old ordinances against things like riding a horse on the sidewalk.

Look, I don't mind a lot of congressional shenanigans and delays over a funding bill, or a tax bill, or a bill restricting or allowing tariffs. Let the process play out.

But when we are attacked and need to defend ourselves, the thought of Trump-deranged Senators filibustering this vital function of the President doesn't appeal to me at all.