It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
The "War Powers Resolution":
In the modern era, executive branch lawyers have argued that the president, as commander in chief, may use military force unilaterally if he decides a strike would be in the national interest, at least when its anticipated nature, scope and duration fall short of “a ‘war’ in the constitutional sense,” as a Clinton administration lawyer wrote in the context of a contemplated intervention in Haiti.
It says a president may only introduce forces into hostilities with congressional authorization or if the United States has been attacked. But, confusingly, it also requires presidents to terminate deployments after 60 days if they lack authorization, which could suggest that one-off strikes and brief operations are allowed. Presidents of both parties have acted beyond the statute’s purported constraint about when they may launch an attack, seeing it as unconstitutionally narrow.
One case? I guess that leaves 199 more examples to go.
Hmmm what did Clinton say back in 1994
I do believe the strikes were less than 60 days....
originally posted by: conspiracy nut
why are you deflecting and saying well hilary did it why shouldnt trump be able to? well trump was supposed to be different remember? so far trump just seems like bush 3.0 he is turning into what trump supporters hated most. don't you feel at least a little lets see whats the expression i'm looking for oh yes "stabbed in the back"?
originally posted by: Phage
I do believe your source is ignoring § 1542, which I quoted above, which requires consultation with Congress before engaging in hostilities.
What they were doing was obviously in the US’s “national interest,” and the military action was strictly limited in time and scope (in other words, it wasn’t big enough to count as a real war, or even real hostilities)
originally posted by: Phage
It did crap. What's next?
My point is that you cited an interpretation of the law. An interpretation which ignores other aspects of that law. I quoted one of those aspects. There are more.
so what is your point?
Would you like me to list another 149?
originally posted by: Phage
My point is that you cited an interpretation of the law. An interpretation which ignores other aspects of that law. I quoted one of those aspects. There are more.
Do you think the president had any particular reason to not even notify Congress of his decision, while telling the Russians about what he was going to do?
Please.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, based on what you've said so far ...
1. You believe that as long as past Presidents have done a thing, that justifies the current President doing that same thing?
2. You believe that what the Constitution actually says is less important than what you (or someone else) interprets it to mean in a modern context?
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices,
and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;
he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them,
and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper;
he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers;
he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Being the "Commander in Chief" does not mean (literally) that the President can do as he wishes (ignoring the fact for the moment that, Constitutionally speaking, we aren't even supposed to MAINTAIN a standing Army), because the Constitution established in Article I that the power to declare war rests with the Congress.
The War Powers Act is an expression of that power OF CONGRESS to initiate war (military actions against other sovereign states).
So actually, if anyone "missed the mark" here it is yourself unless you mean to argue to undermine the US Constitution.