Trump's "minor" attacks completely out of Constitutional scope

people don't realize that ww2 was the last time congress declared war, the president usually ignores the war powers act because the constitution is the supreme law, article 2, section 2 says this: "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".

the president doesn't actually need approval of congress to invade another nation or conduct military operations.

a reply to: namehere

Yes, POTUS does. All that you cited is where the constitution gives the power of control of the military during approved actions to the President. If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers at the time of drafting the constitution, you would understand that reality.

Power to direct the military is not synonymous with the power to declare war.

There are scholarly articles and well-written discussions on the topic that show as much, a couple of which I noted in a previous comment.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

no you seem to be misunderstanding this part of the constitution "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties" but if you actually read it you would realize military operations don't require any treaty or a "formal declaration".

military operations are not treaties.

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Like those 2000 US soldiers on the ground in Syria? Pretty sure they are part of the USA and deserve some “protecting” and don’t deserve to be Assads next chemical experiment. Should they be there? Irrelevant to the tone of this thread that insists bad actors should be allowed to employ weapons forbidden by world treaties.

I applaud POTUS’ actions in this case. World sees what happens when a country uses illegal weapons on their own soil/people. They all should be able to do the math and predict the exponential destruction to their country if they try it on US soil. ANY country that tries it on US soil.

There's a certain logic to fighting ISIS, in that "we" effectively created them. You're bad decisions create a monster and it sets itself loose then only a POS bastard wouldn't help fix the mess. So there is some argument there at least.

Then again so is Al Qaeda. ISIS essentially is Al Qaeda. But 'proper' Al Qaeda, ahem the "moderate rebels", was sent in by CIA/NATO as mercs to topple Assad which started all this mess. And this is how the "right" could completely put Obama / Killary / DNC et out of favor for eternity. But they dont do it. Because its all a farce. Two competing factions operating the same pirate ship; but its the same crew.

originally posted by: Plotus
Will you accept chemical warfare or not ? That is what it boils down to. President Trump will not.

Explain to me how bombs splattered children by the tens of thousands is ok, but ZOMG that other guy a few dozen kids huffed chlorine gas because of him (allegedly).

UNTHINKABLE!!!

I'll tell ya, as teens we'd make chlorine gas clouds for fun on occasion. And one time we messed up and got a full lung of the stuff. And it sucked. Big time. But we lived. Had a hand grenade went off in front of us we'd be dead. So you tell me whats worse.

maybe i'm not getting my words out correctly but what i mean is that the president can direct military engagements and the only thing that limits the president is the war powers act but the president can ignore the war powers act citing article 2 of the constitution.

any requests for military action sent to congress are for appearances only, they are never formal requests.

a reply to: namehere

Thanks.

While I was in the military, I was a paralegal, and actually had to understand all of this, including things like rules of engagement (at the time...I'm sure that they've changed a bit since then) because we would conduct war games and actually discuss when presidential orders were legal in relation to congressionally approved military actions versus illegal, unilateral directives outside of the scope of actions approved by congress.

I may not be a semi-expert anymore, but I certainly understand how the constitution and subsequent legislation applies to the power of the POTUS when it concerns unilateral offensive military acts.

Please don't try to call me out like I don't understand that which I'm citing. I'm not talking about treaties, here. I know what military operations are, and I know when they fall in line with the directives of the constitution and, as my prior comments have noted, when they do or do not fall in line with the letter of the law of the UN Charter and our own official act governing our participation in the UN.

Now, whether or not Congress has asserted its authority and called out this or past presidents on their, shall we say "iffy" use of our military is a completely different topic, and as is consistently shown in government, authority to do something doesn't matter if those charged with asserting or policing that authority do nothing when it is abused.

Best regards.

ETA:

originally posted by: namehere
maybe i'm not getting my words out correctly but what i mean is that the president can direct military engagements and the only thing that limits the president is the war powers act but the president can ignore the war powers act citing article 2 of the constitution.

any requests for military action sent to congress are for appearances only, they are never formal requests.

No, that is a common misconception, though, and is addressed in the links that I actually directed you toward. I would suggest reading at least the first one.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: carewemust

Is Trump "President of the World", like Obama, or POTUS?

POTUS job is to keep USA safe at the drop of a dime, when that what is needed to keep US safe.

The use of chemical weapons as munitions of war are banned and their use constitutes the right to respond, or do you want it to become the "Norm"?

Anything to hate on Trump. UN had meetings, allies met, actions were agreed upon but hey let's blame Trump for Putin lying about taking all of Assad's chemical weapons away and then letting him use them on civilians.

I thought you were supposed to be against globalism.

America First, right?

There's 192 other UN nations that could sort out handling tiny Syria.

AAdn was there a UN meeting, and it was all decided that "we" have to do a special attack for it? I missed that headline. Funny not even all of NATO was involved. But you say the UN ordered US to strike so by golly we had better obey. Because I guess Macron is President of the World now.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

we have been dealing with the islamic extremism problem since the 20's after the ottoman empire fell so the monster was already there before we did anything, they just shifted their target from the british when power shifted to america and russia. if people want to blame anyone then blame the british for destroying the ottoman empire.

a reply to: TrueBrit

No authority is required to ask a question.

Have you read the resolutions?

TheRedneck

a reply to: SlapMonkey

However, the president MUST obtain congressional approval for such action, per our constitution

A President does not have to obtain additional permission from Congress to enforce a treaty which has already been ratified by Congress. The permission required in the Constitution was given when the treaty was ratified by Congress.

Well, now that I'm behind 100%.

That is my entire point.

TheRedneck

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Power to direct the military is not synonymous with the power to declare war.

When did we declare war on Syria?

There is a difference between military action in response to military action and the declaration of war. A declaration of war includes the intent to take unilateral action against the declared enemy at any time and for no reason other than war is declared. A military response is in response to a specific, threatening action or actions that another power has undertaken.

There is no war on Syria.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes I have read the resolutions, although what I am referring to is the UN charter, which features only chapters and articles thereof, and is the document whose elements are being violated by the current actions of the US, UK and French governments.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

The fact that the Dem's aren't all over this is a major red flag as this could be grounds to draw up impeachment plans and that could push Trump to make mistakes. I'm not saying that I am for that especially, but that is what I would expect the Dem's to be doing 10,000%. We have to ask why they aren't. That is the biggest question I can see we are facing because it will point to many hidden things.

The Dems are not all over this because stopping this kind of action would set a precedent. Even though a republican president did this on this occasion, setting a precedent now would prevent the next democratic president from doing the same thing in the future. Same with inditing a former president for past actions. It's not gonna happen because once that practice is out of the bag any and all presidents, democratic or republican, will be fair game.

Presidents will continue to get away with murder because neither party is willing to set a precedent that would come back to burn their own party.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

i'm sorry about that, i wasn't trying to insult your intelligence i'm just bad with my wording of things.

after reading what you suggested i don't believe it contradicts what i was trying to say, i wasn't arguing that the president doesn't require approval to declare war, what i was trying to say is that the president can act to conduct military operations without a formal declaration of war.

maybe if the majority of congress opposed such actions by the president then that would be different but thus far congress hasn't really tried to intervene with such military actions.

a reply to: TheRedneck

What treaty? I'm discussing the constitution, the UN Charter, and the UN Participation Act as it pertains to these particular attacks. If you have a treaty that directs the president to attack a sovereign nation if it (apparently) attacks its own citizenry, please specify it--maybe I'm missing something..

And I never said that we declared war on Syria, but there is nothing that allows presidential offensive military action without congressional approval unless it is in response to an attack directly on the US, our military abroad, or our territories, and even that is rather limited on how he must do it.

There is a difference between military action in response to military action and the declaration of war.

I know, but unless the military action is taken against the U.S., which it was not, then unilateral attacks on a sovereign nation are not allowed.

Again, unless you have documentation showing otherwise.

a reply to: namehere

I wasn't taking it as an insult on my intelligence--I'm just a random guy on the internet, and you don't know what I do or do not actually know. No offense taken in that regard.

We still, however, will disagree with the generalized statement that you're making: There are certain criteria that must be met before the POTUS can take unilateral military action, and insofar as I can tell with this Syria attack, I haven't seen anything yet that negates my opinion at the moment that acted outside of his authority. I still consider that option unconstitutional anyhow, but I'll concede that authority for argument's sake.

TheRedneck is making the same claim, and he's citing a treaty, so I asked him to produce that treaty so that, if I'm wrong, I can understand why. Absent some special approval already made by Congress that the POTUS can just respond militarily to any type of attack by Syria on its own people (that pertains to our current president), everything that I've researched and cited shows the action to be unlawful.

Congress is spineless, though, so even if the attacks were unlawful, I doubt that they will due their duty to hold Trump accountable. It might, however, provide fuel for the un-started fire for impeachment hearings for the Dems, though, if they start feeling froggy...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

This isn't Executive Privilege. It's compliance with a treaty signed in, if memory serves, 1963 with the UN.

According to the UN Charter, member nations are to act to uphold UN resolutions. Membership in the UN was approved and ratified by Congress. The UN has passed several resolutions condemning chemical weapons use by Syria and authorizing military intervention to uphold.

If someone doesn't like the airstrikes, I understand that. But they are 'legal' according to our UN membership. Don't be mad at Trump; be mad at the UN Security Council who passed the resolutions and the idiots who placed the US military under control of the UN Security Council. Don't cry for impeachment or censure... cry for withdrawal from the only organization in the world more corrupt than the US government.

TheRedneck

Did the UN pass a resolution for US to strike those "chemical weapons facilities"?

Somehow I missed where Colin Powell went in there last week with a vial of baking soda to scare the bejeezus of of them.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
And I never said that we declared war on Syria, but there is nothing that allows presidential offensive military action without congressional approval unless it is in response to an attack directly on the US, our military abroad, or our territories, and even that is rather limited on how he must do it.

That was my premise in starting this late last night. Had been many beers and CNC battles.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, our involvement in NATO is a lie? We cannot take action against an attack on our allies?

Interesting.

ETA: The treaty is the UN Charter, which binds us to UN resolutions.

TheRedneck