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

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

Anything to hate on Trump.

You forgot to label me an America hating libtard (for daring to question POTUS), bro.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Gotta love a thread which starts out completely and utterly wrong with it's very premise. The strikes on Friday were 100%, tested and tried in precedent before the Supreme Court, legal and Constitutional. We've been through this before with every US President since Carter... the office of President has leeway to order airstrikes when he sees fit, provided he alert Congress of his intention. The operation cannout exceed 90 days without Congressional approval and, lookie lookie... this action lasted all of a few hours, well shy of the threshold. Further, based on what we've heard from Congressmen on both sides of the aisle, President Trump would have received Congressional approval even if he had taken the unprecedented and unnecessary step of counseling them for approval beforehand.

Case closed, please actually study your Constitution and Constitutional law precedents next time before pretending that the document supports whatever offhanded position you decide to take.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Liberals don't have the market on ignorance and vapidity cornered... there's really no reason to sling names and insults.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

How was the alleged chemical attack a threat to the United States, or anything even like that?

Just because the Two Party System likes to do it this way doesnt mean its the right way.

But if you can explain without using Two Party System precedents of how a POTUS can just run roughshod over the planet as he sees fit, I'd love to read the arguments.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I was just poking fun at him for throwing that "anything to hate on Trump" line that is cookie cutter kneejerk anti-liberal material right up there with calling them libtards. Getting 'smeared' for being a "conservative" by "liberals", and 'smeared' for being a "liberal" by "conservatives" from one thread to the next is getting quite hilarious lately.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There are more than a few weak-ass RINOs in DC and elsewhere who jumped on the never-Trump train and have been more than willing to ride that POS all the way to the destruction of the country just to see Trump taken down for daring to enter this system from the outside. Like I said, stupidity is no longer demarcated by a D or and R behind a name... it has become more nuanced of late.

a reply to: TheRedneck

And the UN Charter says exactly that which I quoted. I don't get the difficulty in reading the actual words in the charter and understanding what it clearly states is necessary--that approval for countries to participate in military actions be obtained per their constitutions.

I already laid it all out--it really is in black and white.

As for NATO, I have been kind enough to provide links and quotes directly to passages that back what I'm claiming. Would you be interested in showing me exactly where participating in NATO allows a president to ignore constitutional, UN-charter, and our own legal (the UNPA) guidelines that specify that congressional authorization is needed for offensive military action?

Even the War Powers Act only limits the unilateral powers of the POTUS to only three conditions, and none of those are met by a country attacking its own citizenry (50 U.S.C. § 1541).

So, please, because I can't find it anywhere: Show me how invoking NATO negates everything that I just mentioned.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The two party system isn't in the Constitution so... sure.
constitutionus.com...

Article II,
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

Article II,
Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

These two grant the POTUS Constitutional authority to utilize military force to not only defend the United States and retaliate against attacks on the United States, but also to reinforce the foreign policy of the United States.

Delving deeper, the original wording of Article I, Section 8, Subsection 11 was Congress shall have the power "to make war." A large argument between the framers ensued and this was changed to "declare war" to provide the Executive Branch with the ability to act outside of a formal declaration of war against any enemy of the state.
history.house.gov...

For Gerry, giving a single office the entirety of the country’s war powers contradicted the goals of a republic, and he and Madison proposed a quick edit, replacing “make” with “declare” so that the Constitution would read “Congress shall have power to declare war.” The change codified congressional authority but made the clause flexible enough to enable the President to defend the country during emergencies. The delegates worried that Congress would be out of session or would act too slowly if foreign forces invaded America. So, despite their resolve to dilute Executive power, they gave the office an implied authority to “make war” as an insurance policy of sorts for America’s security.

This was long, long before the modern era of the UN, US foreign interests, and the like. As time has passed and the world has changed, the understanding of the Executive Branch's powers has also expanded. I don't think it can be argued that "defense of America" ends at America's borders (unless you're Ron Paul, in which case that old coot is simply too detached from reality to carry much weight these days.)

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Please read my posts in this thread--the bulk of your claims are not factual (well, other than the fact that many presidents have ignored their limited powers and congress has done diddly-sh*t to stop them...and that there is a bit of unchecked precedent).

You tell others to study the constitution--I have plenty of background actively needing to understand the constitution as it pertains to presidential authority to unilaterally order offensive military action. I have literally studied these portions of it side by side with Staff Judge Advocates while in the military.

Your claim that getting congressional approval is unprecedented and unnecessary is absolute absurdity--in fact, Obama's own lawyers told him to do so before striking Syria during his presidency, and he did.

Our constitution, the UN Charter, our own UNPA law, and the War Powers Act all either explain that the president needs congressional approval before military action or that there is a limited scope where the president can act unilaterally (which this instance does not fit).

Congressmen saying that they would have done something is not exactly satisfying of the mandates in the constitution or other charters and legislation.

And precedents that have gone unopposed by spineless congresses and courts unwilling to rule on them do not equate to constitutional actions. What kind of logic is that?

I stole a candy bar as a kid and didn't get arrested and punished, therefore stealing is constitutional.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Your claim that getting congressional approval is unprecedented and unnecessary is absolute absurdity--in fact, Obama's own lawyers told him to do so before striking Syria during his presidency, and he did.

They sure did, because Justice Robert Jackson postured in the Youngstown Steel case that there were 3 categories by which the Executive Branches powers could be sound in following a test of the authority. The shakiest ground of all 3 was ground in which Congress disagreed with the President taking an action... Jackson called that position as the least legitimate use of powers. The most legitimate use, by the by, was when the President acted with the express OR IMPLIED consent of Congress. Obama lacked Congressional consent where Syria was concerned... Congress was majority opposed to him striking Syria and they were vocal about it. Trump, as we have seen this weekend, had a majority of support of his actions, placing him in what Justice Jackson would have considered a legitimate, solid position.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

These two grant the POTUS Constitutional authority to utilize military force to not only defend the United States and retaliate against attacks on the United States, but also to reinforce the foreign policy of the United States.

Utilizing military force and authorizing new wars and military actions are different things. You are misinterpreting what these mean, as do many others. Hell, even lawyers and judges don't agree on this stuff (which is why there has never really been a legal interpretation of it that I've ever encountered).

For Gerry, giving a single office the entirety of the country’s war powers contradicted the goals of a republic, and he and Madison proposed a quick edit, replacing “make” with “declare” so that the Constitution would read “Congress shall have power to declare war.” The change codified congressional authority but made the clause flexible enough to enable the President to defend the country during emergencies. The delegates worried that Congress would be out of session or would act too slowly if foreign forces invaded America. So, despite their resolve to dilute Executive power, they gave the office an implied authority to “make war” as an insurance policy of sorts for America’s security.

Emergencies do not include nations halfway around the world using very questionable means to attack their own people. What I underlined is also contained within the spirit of the War Powers Act (which I question its constitutionality as well, as do others) where it says that the president's authority to unilaterally authorize military actions "are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

This Syrian gas attack does not constitute an emergency (where a foreign force was invading America) per your citation, nor does it satisfy the three criteria of the War Powers Act which specifically states, without question, the limitations on the president's unilateral military authority.

I don't think it can be argued that "defense of America" ends at America's borders (unless you're Ron Paul, in which case that old coot is simply too detached from reality to carry much weight these days.)

That's a straw man--no one has claimed that at all. All we're doing is citing laws and charters that show the strike to be lacking in authority as done in this instance.

If we need to defend America by striking countries at war with its own people (not really a "defense of America" proper), we have ways to do it that are not unilateral and are constitutional.

But you seem so dead-set on your interpretation that errs on the side of the-POTUS-can-attack-whomever-for-whatever-reason that I don't think that any comments, no matter how factually correct they are, will sway your opinion on the matter.

So be it, I suppose.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

At this point, you're admitting that the ground is shaky when it comes to the POTUS acting unilaterally--if it was so set in stone, like you claim, and so proven by studying the constitution and citing precedence, then the ground would be rock solid. Yet here we are, with precedent for the action, and it's still exceptionally shaky ground.

I say it's unconstitutional, you don't.

Here we sit, shaking around in the ether of differing opinions and no legal ruling to prove one side right with any finality.

The world in which we always seem to find ourselves anymore when it comes to government authorities.

I'm back away from this thread, now, I think. I've said my piece more than once, with links and quotes and legal experience on the matter. People can obviously have their own opinions regardless.

Best regards.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Executive privilege regarding conducting military strikes outside of Congressional declared wartime is rather specific to situations that mandate a commander in chief sort of emergency response. Right?

The "liberal media" that supposedly wants to DESTROY Trump, yet they wont take this softball that lands on the home plate?

Instead last year, a year ago when Trump bombed that airport in response to that "chemical" "attack", all they've ever done since is frame the issue around how unsuccessful it was.

We're all being played together folks, including against each other, by all the same fountainheads as one another.

They know he has 90 days to convince congress to declare war.

Just like obama did with all them other countries he bombed without them.

Or they are just stupid.

Did Trump declare war ?
Review Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America.
The only power Congress was given , was the power to declare war , provide funding for the military , and one other that I have forgotten
Any President , being Commander in Chief , has the right to order operations of the military as long as they are not declared war.
Trump cleared himself with the words " this is not an invasion.."

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gothmog
Can you tell me where in the Constitution ?
I believe I have eye problems and cannot see it...

Bill Clinton took out a baby formula manufacturing plant
Barack Obama took out an aspirin manufacturing plant
Donald Trump took out a bleach plant.

But , I will be waiting on your answer to the first question...

And who put a cruise missile through gaddafi's window?

These assholes in congress better get their poop in a pile.

My beloved USAF....
Turned Iraq into the world's only million hole golf course...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: burdman30ott6

At this point, you're admitting that the ground is shaky when it comes to the POTUS acting unilaterally--if it was so set in stone, like you claim, and so proven by studying the constitution and citing precedence, then the ground would be rock solid. Yet here we are, with precedent for the action, and it's still exceptionally shaky ground.

I say it's unconstitutional, you don't.

Here we sit, shaking around in the ether of differing opinions and no legal ruling to prove one side right with any finality.

The world in which we always seem to find ourselves anymore when it comes to government authorities.

I'm back away from this thread, now, I think. I've said my piece more than once, with links and quotes and legal experience on the matter. People can obviously have their own opinions regardless.

Best regards.

No, I'm saying the Youngstown decision (which didn't even involve a military attack) is the closest SCOTUS ruling you will find to validating your position. That decision sits amidst a sea of other rulings which set the precedents for Trump's Syria attack being 100% Constitutional. I'll be blunt, your interpretation of the Executive Branch's war powers doesn't mean jack snip, CONSTITUTIONALLY your opinion and interpretation is meaningless. CONSTITUTIONALLY the SCOTUS holds the only opinion that matters and they have ruled that this type of strike is Constitutional multiple times.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
This was long, long before the modern era of the UN, US foreign interests, and the like. As time has passed and the world has changed, the understanding of the Executive Branch's powers has also expanded. I don't think it can be argued that "defense of America" ends at America's borders (unless you're Ron Paul, in which case that old coot is simply too detached from reality to carry much weight these days.)

So anti-gun people say Constitution outdated, and you SCREAM 'No'.

But then when it comes to the US being a hegemonic empire the vehicle for which being Two Party POTUS acts unilaterally and Two Party Congress does nothing about it, 'oh, well the Constitution be outdated and Two Party SCOTUS have it all figured out and have We The Little Peoples best interests at heart'.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

And your interpretations outweigh mine how? I mean, I get that you're confident in your claims and, bluntly put, holier-than-thou presentation of your opinion, but you're not proving your point at all, just saying things like 'your interpretation is meaningless' and how everyone except you needs to go study the constitution.

Please, show these SCOTUS rulings that set this precedence, because from what I understand, SCOTUS has not ruled on something like this directly, and I'm not interested in indirect rulings, because those leave the ground trembling and certainly do not equate to your claim of "100% Constitutional."

I would be interested in you negating that understanding with actual links--black-and-white proof.

In the meantime, this is from a link that I shared earlier in my initial comment on this thread:

“The Vesting Clause grants the president a wide array of unspecified powers pertaining to foreign affairs.”

You won’t hear this argument in many casual discussions of presidential war powers, but since Yoo cited it in a draft memorandum he wrote for the Department of Defense in early 2002, it’s worth a brief reply.

The Vesting Clause can be found in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution; “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” According to this view, the Vesting Clause bestows on the president a host of unspecified powers in addition to the specific ones listed in the rest of Article II. The Framers of the Constitution, they say, thereby showed that they wanted the president to exercise all powers that would have been recognized in the eighteenth century as being fundamentally executive in nature, even if those powers are not actually mentioned in the Constitution. Congress, on the other hand, is assigned no such open-ended authority but is instead limited by the Constitution to all “legislative Powers herein granted,” a reference to the specific list of powers that then follows. The conclusion: the president may rightly exercise all powers relating to foreign affairs (since such powers are by their nature executive) except those specifically assigned to Congress.

Unfortunately for Yoo, he will not find any support for his views on executive power and the Vesting Clause in the state constitutions drawn up after 1776, in the Federalist, or in the state ratification debates. Nowhere in the state constitutions do we see any indication of an intent to vest the executive with an array of unspecified powers beyond those that were expressly mentioned. In Federalist #69, Alexander Hamilton argued that the American president would be much weaker than the British king, and cited the specific list of powers the Constitution grants the president. That argument would have been absurd and dishonest if the Vesting Clause had given the president an additional reservoir of powers beyond those Hamilton catalogued. Curtis Bradley and Martin Flaherty, writing in the Michigan Law Review, conclude that “in the thousands of pages recording these debates the argument that the Vesting Clause grants the president a general foreign affairs power simply does not appear.”

In short, there is no constitutional support for the presidential war powers claimed by mainstream left and right. That’s why they usually wind up claiming that the congressional power to declare war is “obsolete.” They can’t deny its existence, so they deny the document in which it is contained. And that means they lose the argument.

But seriously, let's see those "multiple times" that the SCOTUS has ruled on these types of strikes, "these types" being retaliations against sovereign nations for acts that they commit on their own citizens when we are not at war with said nation and there is no UN resolution to be there.

I'll probably check in tomorrow to see if you were so inclined to prove your claim, but if not, I'll chalk it up to another opinion that doesn't mean jack snip, apparently just like mine.

Best regards...again.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I didn't say the Constitution was outdated. If anything my interpretations here between this and the 2nd are in lockstep with each other. The Constitution guarantees the Right of the People to bear arms, not muskets, nor flintlocks, ARMS. Same then as today, the Right of the People to keep and bear military arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

Similarly, "American Security" doesn't know borders nor does it today mean purely America's held land. It meant, at that time, that the Executive branch held the power to defend America and America's interests... not within America's borders, not "only if America is directly assailed" but "defend this country." Fast forward to today and it is just as implicit... "America" is this country, our people, our interests, and our policies.

Again, 100% Constitutional, legal, and right whether you think so or otherwise really doesn't mean a damn thing.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

Similarly, "American Security" doesn't know borders nor does it today mean purely America's held land. It meant, at that time, that the Executive branch held the power to defend America and America's interests... not within America's borders, not "only if America is directly assailed" but "defend this country." Fast forward to today and it is just as implicit... "America" is this country, our people, our interests, and our policies.

Again, 100% Constitutional, legal, and right whether you think so or otherwise really doesn't mean a damn thing.

Oh crap, your neocon posturing alone will win this debate as 100% nobody can challenge anything and we're all stupid. WHy not make it a cool 110% certainty for good measure?

By "American security" you mean "American interests" right. Care to exaplin how blowing up the whole Middle East, thus creating generation after generation of radicals that want to KILL me and you is in our interests as "Americans"??

"American interests" really mean the interests of the corporate war mongering / disaster capitalist elites, ahem the Military Industrial Complex that owns both parties.

Or let me guess, the 9/11 hjackers attacked us for our freedoms, as in yours and mine, to have a beer or go to church or not go to church on sundays. Right?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

1. Why, oh why are we bringing the topic of a "UN Resolution" into a discussion about the Constitutionality of a presidential action? The UN has no place in any discussion on the Constitution.

2. "My interpretation" is sourced widely in the above with direct links to both the Constitution and the Youngstown trial. Not opinion pieces and whatnot.

3. The SCOTUS has not directly heard a case on past POTUS direct actions against a nation operating in defiance of our foreign policies and objectives. They have only ruled on the Executive Branch's position as the Commander in Chief.