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.

 

Did Trump break the law

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Trump is not the president of the UN. Trump is the president of the US. Military operations carried out by the US military are under the authorization of the president of the US, not under the authorization of the general secretary of the UN.




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dfnj2015

"eff the Constitution"? I never thought I'd see the day an American would utter that phrase in sincerity...


People love the military. People hate Congress. It just naturally follows that the people would prefer STRONG leadership that can only come from having a right wing military style dictatorship. Why do we even have executive orders? Executive orders seem pretty stretchy to me in the first place when it comes to the Constitution.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Except EO's are also subject to the Constitution through Judicial Review as Trump found out earlier this year.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dfnj2015

Except EO's are also subject to the Constitution through Judicial Review as Trump found out earlier this year.


Do you think Trump broke the law by attacking a country that did not attack the US without congressional approval as outlined in the Constitution? Or, because Trump is a Republican, the Constitution becomes toilet paper?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The president has the authorization to reduce refugees to 0 and there is nothing the courts can do about it. Courts do not have intelligence briefings. The president does. The state department is the one that issues visas, not the courts.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Balogna. It's a low brow attempt to paint an opponent as petty and immature. I don't know how much you read the boards but your accusations are off base with the member you're lobbing them at. Most of us, actually, I'd say all of us lefties here at ATS are well over Trumps win.

It can also be said that Trumps use of military force in Syria is praised while Obama's was condemned as illegal by the same people. Trump himself demanded Obama get Congressional approval to conduct operations in Syria. Two way street.

ETA: Constitutional scholars argue about this so it's not so cut and dry or easily dismissed as petty partisanship.
edit on 4/17/2017 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The president has the authorization to reduce refugees to 0 and there is nothing the courts can do about it. Courts do not have intelligence briefings. The president does. The state department is the one that issues visas, not the courts.

Yet reality has decided that you are wrong and Trump's EO (both of them) is still held up by the courts. Apparently the courts think that the Constitution has a higher authority than Trump does. I wonder where they got that crazy idea from?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Foreign citizens do not have US constitutional rights. They have constitutional rights under the constitutions of the states of which they are citizens. The US president cannot legally kill US citizens. The US president can legally kill foreign citizens.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Wrong again. All humans have rights. The Constitution doesn't exist to grant rights. It exists to protect their abuse from the government. Additionally the Constitution has been ruled to extend to all person's within the US and those trying to enter it. Citizen or otherwise.

You should really go restudy civics and stop letting right wing media explain it to you instead.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Judges are also human. They are not robots. They may have their personal opinions and personal agendas. They are entitled to their opinions. So is everyone else. Judges are not gods and they are not infallible. We shall see when the EO goes to the SCOTUS.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

So will you change your tune when SCOTUS upholds the current rulings? I'm guessing no and you'll just side with whatever outraged, idiotic thing that Trump says about it.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Yes he can do that if he doesn't make exceptions. He is attempting to ban only Muslims from seven countries... not Christians. Thus violating the Constitution.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I guess by not answering my question I can infer you believe partisanship trumps the law. (nice pun!)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Trump didn't do anything any other President has done before. Legal or not, he has precedence on his side.

I just take issue with your complete lack of care for the Constitution and insinuating that Trump is above it. He isn't. That is unamerican to the extreme, in fact.
edit on 17-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
"The resolution, however, allows the President to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities in only three situations: First, after Congress has declared war, which has not happened in this case; second, in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,” which has not occurred; third, when there is “specific statutory authorization,” which there is not.

The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorized the President to use force only against those groups and countries that had supported the 9/11 attacks. The bombing in Syria was not authorized by any other act of Congress. Thus, Trump’s missile attack violated the War Powers Resolution. "

consortiumnews.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

See my previous post.

You post is a little ambiguous but I will assume you are questioning my patriotism with regards to the Constitution. Nice. When all else fails make an ad hominem attack.


edit on 17-4-2017 by dfnj2015 because: typos



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

See the first two sentences of my last post. I'm not questioning the legality of Trump's attack.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dfnj2015

See the first two sentences of my last post. I'm not questioning the legality of Trump's attack.


I am asking you to answer with one of two words: Legal or Illegal.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump is not going to the SCOTUS until Ginsburg retires and he nominates another one to replace her.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

If laws don't matter then stop bitching about democrats violating your rights. You can't have both ways. If you said anything bad about Obama ever you are a hypocrite because as the commander in chief, using your logic, he can do whatever he wants.
Trump cannot legally attack another country without congressional AND UN security counsel approval unless the US is attacked first.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join