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

Trump outlines legal basis for attack on Syria, citing 'vital' national security interests
WASHINGTON — U.S. air strikes on Syria were in the "vital national security and foreign policy interests" of the United States and were intended to prevent future chemical weapons attacks by the Assad regime, President Trump told Congress on Sunday.

"The purpose of this military action was to degrade the Syrian military's ability to conduct further chemical weapons attacks and to dissuade the Syrian government from using or proliferating chemical weapons," Trump said in outlining the legal basis for his action.

Trump did not rule out additional strikes, saying he would take additional action "as necessary and appropriate."

How is anything to do with Syria "vital" to US interests? Is creating 10 million refugees to flood EU and cause massive debate in US "vital"? Because "we" started this BS in orchestrating the "Arab Spring". We funded Al Qaeda & ISIS to blow the place up. Half a MILLION dead because of "vital" US foreign policy and we're supposed to split hairs over kitchen cleaner chemicals?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

If nations are "supposed" to attack because of UN decision then how come its mainly only the US that ever does it?

People have been asking the same thing. Even when other countries participate as they did this time, it is the US who typically does most of the enforcing. That's wrong, and another good reason to get out of the UN.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Makes sense. Then our president can attack whoever he wants to. Without consulting pesky foreigners (or Congress).

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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.

Because those are parts of the discussions in this thread. If you don't care about that part of the discussion, then it's a non-issue for you.

But, considering that you brought NATO into the discussion, and NATO uses the UN Charter as its main guiding document, it's appropriate the bring it up.

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.

Firstly, my understanding of the issue is also sourced widely, to include discussions and quotes as to the intent of the Vesting Clause and the war powers by the POTUS by the people who actually debated and wrote the constitution. The Youngstown case has nothing to do with what I'm discussing, so I'll throw your question back at you: Why, oh why are we bringing the Youngstown case into a discussion about the Constitutionality of a presidential action (when said action--unilateral missile strikes on a sovereign nation not at war or directly attacking the U.S. in any way--has nothing to do with national usurping of private industry under the guise of 'national security)?

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.

Right, so your claim that there are SCOTUS rulings that make this strike 100% constitutional is flat-out BS, because a ruling on this particular topic has never, ever happened.

That was my passive-aggressive point in asking the question--I knew the answer.

See, here's the difference--it's fun to cite court rulings that are not directly related to the problem at hand, but that gets us nowhere in a debate where your initial claim is that we're all idiots who disagree with you, that we need to understand the constitution better, and that the strikes were 100% legal, without question.

There is question and concern to its legality under the constitution, even by sitting congressmen (and by the sitting POTUS, when you look at what he claimed when Obama was contemplating the same thing), and even though you are apparently unwilling to entertain that reality, it's still a reality.

As for your claim of "opinion pieces and whatnot," I take the words of the Founding Fathers concerning their intent, coupled with the "opinion" of this guy (and not to mention my first-hand dealings with these constitutional issues as part of the JAG Corps in the military) over your opinion on the matter. So, you can say, "blahblahblah 100% constitutional, blahblahblah your opinion doesn't matter," all that you want to, but your words and "sourced-widely" claims don't negate the reality that this is an unsettled issue in modern times.

Best regards, and my apology for the late response.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

If a majority of Congress agrees with the POTUS and the SCOTUS fails to hear a case against the Constitutionality of the decision, it is considered to be Constitutional and perfectly legal. That's not a populist argument, it's simply factual per our laws.

Oh my holy good-god hell no that does not mean that something is constitutional, that just means that it has yet to be challenged and ruled on at the SCOTUS level. I see that you are citing logical fallacies as you go in this thread--that determination based on something NOT happening is a big one.

Out of sheer curiosity, what is your official experience in the legal system?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I understand Articles 41 and 42, but they cannot be looked at (at least 42) without the additional verbiage of Art. 43, especially 43(3), which reads (again):

3 The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Now, it's semi-debatable (without an existing SCOTUS ruling on the issue) if Trump's unilateral action is constitutional--if it's not, which is what I'm presenting, then he is also at odds with the UN Charter (and therefore, apparently, with the NATO treaty, which uses the UN Charter as a foundation).

As for the part UNPA that I did not quote, yet you quoted and bolded, it also does not pertain to that which we're discussing here (the Syrian strikes) because the strikes were not dealt with by the UNSC (that I have seen). So, the whole talk of the UN is rather unrelated to the constitutionality of the matter, but it's a point being discussed, so I have cited portions that matter.

The simpler and more appropriate understanding of the language as it pertains to Sec. 6 that you quoted is this: The president needs congressional approval to participate in military actions authorized by the UNSC, but once that approval is received, he does not need additional approval for military actions that are not above and beyond the scope approved by congress under the original UN resolution.

If the scope changes, congressional approval is needed again. The part immediately after that which you bolded matter very much in the part where it talks about him not needing congressional approval. Basically, once congress approves the use of the military, the president can do with the military as he deems necessary under that original scope, which is an understood authority of the Commander-in-Chief per the constitution.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

War was not declared on syria. The POTUS can send military anywhere he wants without a declaration of war.

Korea, Grenada? Viet Nam?

I remember Libya and everyone was saying obama had 90 days until congress had to yay or nay.

So what changed?

Well, for one, the War Powers Act wasn't passed until 1973, so some of what you cite is rather moot as to the 90-day guideline cited by many.

But keep in mind, and like I've noted elsewhere in this thread, just because something occurred repeatedly does not mean that it is constitutional or even legal, it just means that it was never formally opined on by the SCOTUS...and we all know that if government can, it will continue until they are told that they cannot.

In any event, the authority to REact with military force rests in the president's authority, under the WPA (or War Powers Resolution), only if in response to a direct attack within our borders, on our military elsewhere, or in our territories. There has been no direct attack on us by Syria, therefore it doesn't even fall within the scope of the president's legal authority to act unilaterally.

I'm having a very hard time why there are people either unwilling or incapable of understanding that easily understood part of the president's powers. Hell, I consider that authority to be unconstitutional, but at least I'm citing it as a limited option because it hasn't been adjudicated against yet by the SCOTUS.


So, the 90-day option is a real thing, but in a limited scope that does not include the reason why we just bombed Syria.

Trump is doing it?

I don't care who is doing it, as long as it's the POTUS and they're skirting the law, as they've Trump has done here. At least Obama sought congressional approval under the advisement of legal professionals before retaliating against Syria...as much as I disliked his presidency, at least he did that much.

F you idiots.

"Rrrriiiiiiiggggghhhhhht." -- Dr. Evil

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

That's because the liberal media takes their marching orders from the same folks Trump now obviously does....the Deep State.

And they've decided Assad has got to go.

There's simply no logical reason Assad would have gassed them. It's completely opposite to logic. Same with the Russians, because the last thing they want is the US MORE involved in Syria. That leaves only the rebels, except they don't have the aircraft needed to pull it off.

Which leaves....the Deep State, (and their hired mercs).

Trump has done a complete 180 on his major campaign promises, filling the swamp instead of draining it, and now escalating Syria vs. pulling out of it. This particular Trump voter feels pretty damn betrayed. If I would have wanted Hillary's policy handling, I would have voted for her. But, we got it anyways.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I haven't mentioned NATO in a single post in this thread prior to now. Not sure who you're thinking of, but it's not me.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Still waiting for your reason why Iraq deserved to be attack the way you said it should have.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Still waiting for your reason why Iraq deserved to be attack the way you said it should have.

Sometimes the mad scientist has to kill the monster he created, himself. That was Iraq in a nutshell. The US has a crappy track record of manufacturing our own monsters. We needed Saddam Hussein in the 80s as a perpetual pain in Iran's ass. We got that, then for whatever reason the decision was made to ease up on Iran and let Hussein twist in the wind. I'm somewhat torn on Iraq, truth be told. The second Iraq war, however, I had no problem with... Hussein had become a complete and total enemy by that point. The first Iraq war, we should have allowed Iraq to lay claim to Kuwait and then goaded them into laying into Iran. That would have been the smart track but Dumbass Sr. in the White House decided to play White Knight leaving little choice for his son but to remove Hussein once and for all.

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...
Estimates of the casualties from the conflict in Iraq have come in many forms, and the accuracy of the information available on different types of Iraq War casualties varies greatly. Credible estimates of Iraq War casualties range from 150,000 to 460,000. Other highly disputed estimates, such as the 2006 Lancet study, and the ...

ok but what about the other 459,999 people or more that were killed?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Then my apologies for the misidentification. It must have been someone else previously in the thread.

As for a post of yours that I missed:

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Slapmonkey posted opinion pieces, I posted actual citations to the Constitution and a SCOTUS ruling related to the importance of agreement between Congress and the Executive branch... He or she also hasn't replied since my last reply to him or her. Also, he or she wasn't the person who started this entire thread on an incorrect statement. You, however, have replied and were the OP.

I'm a dude...and I've posted WAY more than just opinion pieces...and the only reason that I hadn't replied by then was because I was laid up at home with a torn calf muscle that happened Monday night.

Just checking off all of the boxes so that you are not left with assumptions going forward (if we continue going forward), like I made when saying you were the one that brought up NATO.

In any event, best regards, but I think that I've reached my limit of arguing my points in this thread.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake--I hate when I misattribute things to people.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I only pointed it out because I dislike NATO for one, and I very rarely lean on foreign entity opinion where US actions are concerned for two. NATO, as far as I am concerned, became a liability to this country when they accepted Turkey into their little club. That mistake will someday bite us in the ass when Erdogan picks a fight that's above his weight class and then comes running for US help. Personally, I don't think the US should be on the same side as that maniac, ever.

As for the second reason, as I've pointed out in this thread and others, I don't agree with the idea that the US needs any sort of approval or consensus of support from other countries on any of our actions. This is the United States' yard, we are the big dog and the opinions of the rest frankly aren't that important to warrant any hand wringing or stressing over globalist organizational opinions or positions.

originally posted by: Gothmog

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.."

That was my point.

He didn't declare war but these idiots are acting like he did.

He has 90 days for congress to act.

Doesn't matter, they are useless anyway.

Imagine if congress held total control over the DOD and military.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So slaughtering MILLIONS of people, completely devastating raping and pillaging an entire nation is totally super cool in your book.

My bloodline is Viking, Norman, German, and Slavic, what do you think?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

To answer your question any country that uses chemical weapons is a tgreat to the global community and makes it important to national interests. If there is no consequences for violating chemical weapons bans then there is no chemical weapons ban and any rogue state can use them without fear.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The war powers act did not give the president the rights to attack foreign countries it simply clarified them. As commander in chief the president is authorized to command the armed forces. This goes all the way back to the founding fathers. The battle of Derna was in 1805 18 years after the constitution was created. This attack was authorized by third President Thomas Jefferson. This was the first time US troops fought on foreign soil this was known as First Barbary War and the first time US troops fought on presidential authority.

Now this area has always been murky as to how much authority a president has but it is acknowledged presidential authority does exist for president to commit troops. In fact it is shown congress doesn't have the authority to override the president as commander in chief. In Dellums v Bush The DC district federal court ruled that Congress could not get an injunction on war activities unless a war had begun and that a majority of Congress was named in the suit. In Campbell v Clinton the court threw out the injunction saying congress didn't have legal authority to counter the presidents use of military force.

Now to the war powers act this was not giving the president the right to use military force it was meant to clarify and set up procedures in doing so. Problem is there is things that it forgot to include like peace keeping authorization. Presidents have never tested the constitutional rights of the war power act although they could arguing it infringes on powers given to them as commander in chief. But heres the deal the founding fathers wanted the president to command the US military as he saw fit. The only restrictions they asserted was they wanted the decision to declare war to be made by more then 1 man. Now do to Times changing declarations of war are almost unheard of because most conflicts are local skirmishes. There is a key phrase in the constitution "shall have the power to declare war." Means yes congress can vote to start a war however it doesn't say they have the power to stop military actions, and it doesn't say they are the only one with this power thats the murky waters I was talking about. The founders were not stupid however they realized if a foreign power launched an undeclared war against the USA, it would have made it impossible for the USA to constitutionally defend itself if congress had to approve military action. So these powers were given to the president to determine the threat and the response.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well, at least we seem to agree on the usefulness of NATO (and by extension, the UN) as it pertains to the US...I have advocated the abolition of or withdrawal of the UN ever since I was old enough to understand what it was.

We should never be forced to participate in things on behalf of other countries (nor should any sovereign nation, for that matter) nor others on behalf of us.

I have major issues with alliances and these types of treaties...I see them more as guarantees of perpetual global wars than grand steps toward peace, as they're claimed to be.

ongressman Thomas Massie tweeted:

In briefing to Congress, DNI, SecDef and SecState provided zero real evidence. Referenced info circulating online.

Which means either they chose not to provide proof to Congress or they don’t have conclusive proof that Assad carried out gas attack. Either way, not good.

www.zerohedge.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The war powers act did not give the president the rights to attack foreign countries it simply clarified them. As commander in chief the president is authorized to command the armed forces. This goes all the way back to the founding fathers...

Understood, and I've discussed that in this thread.

Now this area has always been murky as to how much authority a president has but it is acknowledged presidential authority does exist for president to commit troops. In fact it is shown congress doesn't have the authority to override the president as commander in chief. In Dellums v Bush The DC district federal court ruled that Congress could not get an injunction on war activities unless a war had begun and that a majority of Congress was named in the suit. In Campbell v Clinton the court threw out the injunction saying congress didn't have legal authority to counter the presidents use of military force.

But what you're not specifying is the "why" behind the authority to commit troops...there is a massively limited scope, and it's spelled out in the War Powers Act/Resolution. As it pertains to this specific attack in Syria, there is no authority that allowed him to do this, other than unchecked precedence that, IMO and the opinion of many others, was as unconstitutional then as it is now.

Presidents have never tested the constitutional rights of the war power act although they could arguing it infringes on powers given to them as commander in chief. But heres the deal the founding fathers wanted the president to command the US military as he saw fit. The only restrictions they asserted was they wanted the decision to declare war to be made by more then 1 man.

Right, but it's a relative misconception that "declare war" was only an 'official courtesy' to another country. Some people argue that, at the time, "declare war" was just a formality, and that it did not necessarily pertain to actual offensive or defensive military movements. But it can be shown that this is not necessarily the case, as I have provided the link previously. While this is not the only opinion on the matter, by far, I'll still quote it here:

This is partly correct. In the eighteenth century a “declaration of war” could indeed have this lesser meaning. But a review of eighteenth-century usage reveals that to “declare war” could also mean actually to begin a war.

Consider also that as the Constitution was being debated, Federalists sought to reassure skeptical anti-Federalists that the president’s powers were not so expansive after all. For one thing, the Federalists said, the president lacked the power to declare war. In order for their argument to carry any weight, “declare war” must have been taken to mean the power to initiate hostilities – for no anti-Federalist would have been appeased by “Sure, the president can take the country to war on his own initiative, but the power to draft declaratory statements will rest with Congress!”

If [John]Yoo’s argument were correct, we should expect to see presidents in the years immediately following ratification of the Constitution taking bold military action without concerning themselves much about the will of Congress, which according to Yoo had only the power to issue declaratory statements. But as we have seen in the examples of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, the opposite was in fact the case; these early presidents were careful to defer to Congress.

Now, again, I'm not saying that this is the end-all to the discussion--as I have noted, this is a far-from-solved debate--but the reality is that, if you actually read deeper into the intent by the Founding Fathers, it's pretty clear that the final intent was to avoid the President from having the ability to unilaterally use our military against other nations at any time for any reason. That is something that the Monarchy in Great Britain was able to do, and both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed that being 'a thing' here in America, generally speaking.

There is a key phrase in the constitution "shall have the power to declare war." Means yes congress can vote to start a war however it doesn't say they have the power to stop military actions, and it doesn't say they are the only one with this power...

Actually, if you read the constitution, it does only give the power to declare war to Congress alone. There is literally NOTHING in the Constitution that gives that power to the POTUS--what it does do is give the power of unilaterally commanding the military once it is approved for use in wartime actions without the need to continually consult congress.

The founders were not stupid however they realized if a foreign power launched an undeclared war against the USA, it would have made it impossible for the USA to constitutionally defend itself if congress had to approve military action. So these powers were given to the president to determine the threat and the response.

Again, and keeping in the scope of this thread about the specific Syria attacks, a defensive use of the military on US soil is absolutely not the same thing as offensive strikes against a sovereign nation who has not attacked us--or even a different nation, for that matter.

Declaring war on someone is not the same as defensively fighting a war against us, and that's not something that I've argued the POTUS cannot do (although while I don't believe the War Powers Act is Constitutional, necessarily, I acknowledge that it is the law of the land currently)--as it stands now, he has the ability to defend our nation from direct attack, respond to attacks on our military, and to protect our territories from attack for 90 days without congressional approval.

But again, that is not what happened here--he offensively attacked a nation who was not a direct threat to us without congressional approval.

That's not okay, and honestly, I hope that it gets taken to the SCOTUS so that we can solve this once and for all.