Rep. Massie Debates Iran War Powers Resolution

[TNHarley]

It says that in the war powers resolution, doesnt it? We are both NOW in 100% agreement that Trump has every right to wage this war and he has done everything by the book, right?

So you admit you lied. Good.
No, we are not in agreement. I pick the constitution over politics.

 

[dblack]

The thing that's missing, from all the quibbling, is what kind of government we actually want. Regardless of opinions on the verbiage of our laws and Constitution - do we WANT the President to have unilateral power to use the military to attack other nations?

I think it's a really bad idea.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The thing that's missing, from all the quibbling, is what kind of government we actually want. Regardless of opinions on the verbiage of our laws and Constitution - do we WANT the President to have unilateral power to use the military to attack other nations?

I think it's a really bad idea.

I think it is a great idea.

Even when we have a president who lacks cognitive autonomy,* the people acting on his behalf need to have that unilateral power.

Because the alternative is for us to be paralyzed on case of an attack while wating for the Senate to say "yes you may," to the President's "Mother may I?" Thus attacking the Senate first becomes an easy winning strategy for any hostile nation.

*Hoping that we will never have such a president again, of course.

 

[TNHarley]

I think it is a great idea.

Even when we have a president who lacks cognitive autonomy,* the people acting on his behalf need to have that unilateral power.

Because the alternative is for us to be paralyzed on case of an attack while wating for the Senate to say "yes you may," to the President's "Mother may I?" Thus attacking the Senate first becomes an easy winning strategy for any hostile nation.

*Hoping that we will never have such a president again, of course.

If we were to get attacked, the president does not need congress. The other country already declared war.
Despite MAGAs retarded bullshit, bombing another country is war. Taking out their leaders, is war.

 

[Godboy]

Yeah. Probably not here. Very little opportunity to engage in sober debate in the midst of all the poo-flinging.

Mkay.

If you cant defend your positions here, then why be here in the first place? Dont cop out with that weak shit.

 

[protectionist]

Yes. Which we've been pointing out - is unconstitutional.

Next excuse?

Article 6, Clause 2 - the Supremacy Clause - "This Constitution AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES......shall be the supreme law of the land.

 

[protectionist]

So you admit you lied. Good.
No, we are not in agreement. I pick the constitution over politics.

Me too. Read Post # 286.

 

[protectionist]

If we were to get attacked, the president does not need congress. The other country already declared war.
Despite MAGAs retarded bullshit, bombing another country is war. Taking out their leaders, is war.

That other country (Iran) has BEEN ATTACKING and declaring war, for 47 years.

 

[Godboy]

No, we are not in agreement. I pick the constitution over politics.

The constitution doesnt say ANYTHING about limiting the presidents use of the military. All it says is that he cant formally declare war. If he doesnt formally declare war, then how would he be breaking the constitution?

 

[buttercup]

Turn off the TV, boomers.

 

[dblack]

If you cant defend your positions ...

I think you missed my point. I can defend my positions fine. You're not worth the effort.

 

[Godboy]

I think you missed my point. I can defend my positions fine. You're not worth the effort.

You could have just defended your position, as opposed to typing THAT ^. Thats multiple posts in a row now that are an utter waste of time.

You NEVER defend your positions. You simply arent capable of it.

 

[dblack]

You could have just defended your position, as opposed to typing THAT ^. Thats multiple posts in a row now that are an utter waste of time.

You NEVER defend your positions. You simply arent capable of it.

Sure I do. You're lying. You do that a lot.

 

[MarcATL]

Massie is an idiot.

The War Powers Act of 1973 requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours after hostilities start, which President Trump did.

It requires the President to withdraw forces after 60-90 day (30 day extension for “safety”) if Congress does not approve.

Have we passed 90 days?

Even when that time comes up, what exactly are we going to withdraw from? We haven’t invaded with ground troops. There is no obligation to withdraw our own troops from our own bases from the region. Nor would there be a requirement to withdraw the Navy from the area.

Meanwhile if they get attacked by Iran, the President has the right to authorize retaliation.

So the War Powers Act has no teeth here. President Trump could just restart a new clock after a set time of peace, even if one day, then notify Congress again.

Would you criticize him if he passes that 90-day threshold with no approval?

 

[Seymour Flops]

If we were to get attacked, the president does not need congress. The other country already declared war.

From post 279, this thread:

Despite MAGAs retarded bullshit, bombing another country is war. Taking out their leaders, is war.

Of course it is.

You realize this particular debate is moot, since the president has 60 days to act before he even needs to ask Congress and then another thirty to withdraw if they say "Hell NO!"

Trump is already signaling a drawdown, so it seems that MAGA is correct not to get in a twist over this.

 

[theHawk]

Would you criticize him if he passes that 90-day threshold with no approval?

As I stated, a President can easily hit the reset button on the 60 day timer. We have no boots on the ground so there is there is no need for an authorization from Congress. The President can conduct any new military operations to protect the US whenever he feels necessary. That’s his constitutional right and duty.

 

[Godboy]

Sure I do. You're lying. You do that a lot.

Youre STILL not defending your position.

 

[TNHarley]

The constitution doesnt say ANYTHING about limiting the presidents use of the military. All it says is that he cant formally declare war. If he doesnt formally declare war, then how would he be breaking the constitution?

It doesnt limit the power of the president from shooting 4th graders touring the lincoln memorial. But he cant do that, can he?
Retard.
You dont even understand what the constitution is. Much less debate it.

 

[TNHarley]

From post 279, this thread:

View attachment 1229429

Of course it is.

You realize this particular debate is moot, since the president has 60 days to act before he even needs to ask Congress and then another thirty to withdraw if they say "Hell NO!"

Trump is already signaling a drawdown, so it seems that MAGA is correct not to get in a twist over this.

Ok, and my argument is that it is unconstitutional.

 

[Godboy]

It doesnt limit the power of the president from shooting 4th graders touring the lincoln memorial. But he cant do that, can he?
Retard.
You dont even understand what the constitution is. Much less debate it.

No, he cant commit murder. Murder is covered under state and federal law. War is covered in federal law too. Its called "the war powers resolution of 1973", as we both know.