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

Will you accept chemical warfare or not ? That is what it boils down to. President Trump will not.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

HA



you owe me a fresh cup of tea for that one, the last mouthful I had sprayed out of my nose reading that!

a reply to: carewemust

Did you see proof Assad used those chemicals?

If not, how are you so sure this bombing was good?

You know what would save lives for sure though?

How about not arming the rebels (isis, al nursa, etc.)

It amazes me how so many people could spend all year distrusting the intel community, but then as soon as it’s convenient they now are willing to believe them with no proof whatsoever

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

Then why is he supporting the rebels that have used chemical weapons?

How many times did Clinton bomb doctors without borders? Obama fired a shot over the bow; remember that one? What part of the constitution restricts these attacks without congressional authorization? I thought that was only required to declare war, and in the interim the president can act unilaterally in the interest of national security.

I dont agree with the attacks. There is not sufficient evidence supporting who instigated the alleged chemical attacks in my opinion. We look at Iraq and can say yes, Saddam Hussein was a SOB who killed a few people, but it was nothing in contrast to a war torn post-Saddam Iraq. We saw a similar pattern in Afghanistan. Now we see it in Syria.

What is the end-game? Regime change has never improved a country in all my recollection.

a reply to: carewemust


Ummm...please do explain what two actions those might have been...

FFS...when I look in the mirror...I don't have the ghosts of bomb victims staring back at me...my conscience is clean in that regard...

Didn't you hear...Macron convinced Trump to stay in Syria for the long haul...

Imagine that...

Actions saving lives my ass...back away from those hallucinogenic's man...you've swallowed not just the hook...line and sinker...you've swallowed the pole...







YouSir

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

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

President Trump takes 2 actions in just ONE WEEK that will save countless lives, and supposedly "moral" people are out there whining about how disappointed they are in this man...with some even calling for his impeachment.

They need to look in the mirror, and figure out if it's really a MORAL PERSON who's looking back at them.

For crying out loud, dropping bombs and firing missiles does not save lives. They are not love bombs or peace missiles.

Getting rid of something that kills people, saves lives..

Ummm...I certainly hope you can see how truly ironic that statement is...as the cruise missiles impacted...

Especially in light of the wests research and production of...somethings that kill people...


Wow...









YouSir

a reply to: carewemust

They need to look in the mirror, and figure out if it's really a MORAL PERSON who's looking back at them.

Maybe take your own advice?

Let's ask people from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen how American intervention has been. Our "freedom" we project with bullets and bombs typically do more harm than good.

So where was our morality with that handful of countries I listed? I'm sure others could add to the list.

Post WWII, very few of the countries we've "come to the rescue" to have benefited.

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.

It's all a bunch of #talking until we get pulled into the war that Hillary wanted...... Then it's perfectly acceptable

a reply to: TinfoilTP

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"?

You mean like depleted uranium or something?

Also, last I checked OP doesn't find excuses to hate on Trump, but hate on war.

And why not hate on war? It should be a bipartisan issue. Waste of lives and tax payers money. Given our success rate, or lack there of, maybe we should give our foreign projection second thought. Surely we can use that money at home in the mean time.

As for the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, I assure you there are equal human rights violations in many countries across the globe. The difference is they don't have the same strategic value Syria has.

Either way, I suppose you're already sold on this war, which should have the MSM saying "mission accomplished".

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Here is a relatively thorough discussion on the topic of constitutionality of presidents unilaterally ordering offensive strikes (which, unless our country is directly attacked, any military action is offensive in nature). It answers the following claims and comments to show why they are wrong:

- The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress

- John Adams made war on France without consulting Congress

- Jefferson acted unilaterally against the Barbary pirates

- Presidents have sent men into battle hundreds of times without getting congressional authorization

- The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the president the power to commit troops anywhere he likes for 90 days

- If the United Nations authorizes military action, the president does not need to consult Congress

Paraphrased comments by John Yoo
- In the eighteenth century, a ‘declaration of war’ was a merely rhetorical and communicative act – a ‘courtesy to the enemy’ – and did not involve the initiation or authorization of hostilities. Thus in granting Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution had merely given it the power to communicate to an enemy people (as well as to neutrals and to the country’s own citizens that a state of war existed; the president, on the other hand, retained the power actually to bring the United States into war by commencing military action.

- Congress may have some power over major wars, but lesser uses of force are reserved to the president alone.

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

The fact that some people claims these things, especially a Deputy Assistant Attorney General (in Yoo's case, under G.W. Bush) amazes me.

ETA: This is a bit short, but also a good read from Justia.com: The Cold War and After: Presidential Power to use Troops Overseas Without Congressional Authorization

stupid browser going slow...DP of an empty comment

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Their use does not permit any nation, no matter how powerful, to act or induce others to join them in action against a sovereign power, without a robust and independently verified collection of evidence that proves beyond doubt who the culprit, who the users of the chemical weapons actually were.

We have no such thing in this instance, and plenty of reason to believe that the Syrian government was not responsible for the "attack" in question. One of the reasons we have for believing there is more to the story, is that rebel (read: Terrorist) held weapons stockpiles, hit with a relatively mundane missile, were more than likely the source of the release of the chemical weapon concerned, rather than its being deployed by the Syrian government itself. Until someone comes along with a heap of evidence which counters the other potential and, strategically speaking, far more likely probabilities involved in this case, there will be no case for military intervention in the region, by western forces.

And again, I cannot stress enough that the west already has representatives in the region. ISIS and the other so called rebel groups on the ground, are all a part of the same networks, networks controlled and handled by the US intelligence community for DECADES. There was ALREADY too much western interference in the region, even when the only people on the ground were ISIS forces and other rebellious factions, but now its yet another ruined gap into which the United States, the United Kingdom, and France have wandered.

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

Actually, what it boils down to for many of us is whether or not we will act in accordance with the laws of our land, or if we will accept the trend of ignoring laws and regulations just because our emotions can get the better of us.

I find the act of anyone using chemical weapons abhorrent, especially against civilians, but I also find the disregard shown our governing documents abhorrent as well.

Both actions tend to get people killed, but only one of those do I personally have any sort of power, perceived or actual, to try and change.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Their use does not permit any nation, no matter how powerful, to act or induce others to join them in action against a sovereign power, without a robust and independently verified collection of evidence that proves beyond doubt who the culprit, who the users of the chemical weapons actually were.

Under what authority do you speak?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Under what authority do you ask?

More to the point, have you read the UN charter lately?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

President Trump takes 2 actions in just ONE WEEK that will save countless lives, and supposedly "moral" people are out there whining about how disappointed they are in this man...with some even calling for his impeachment.

They need to look in the mirror, and figure out if it's really a MORAL PERSON who's looking back at them.

You are calling trump a Moral person??? LOL, seriously? The man who has divorced two woman to marry the one he was currently having an affair with. Having unprotected sex with a porn star, while his wife was at home caring for his child she had just given birth to...

How about trump on Howard Stern, they were all talking about what a Hot Piece of ### his daughter is, over and over. I have never in my life heard a father say, and talk about their own daughter that way.

How about trump U. A scam, to take hard earned money from people who trusted, and believed trump U could get them somewhere in life.


I could go on and on...Morally I can look myself in the mirror every day, and with NO DOUBT know that I am a better person than trump is or ever has been.

Then I go and work with challenged children, and make a difference in their lives every day!! So yeah don't you even start to tell me to look in the mirror, because I am very happy with who I am.

Oh, and also, Look up trumps tweet from 3 years ago....Saying Obama needs to stay out of Syria, not in those words, much harsher words. I cant remember verbatim and not going to look it up right now, but yes indeed trump was very against Obama having anything to do with Syria. Funny cause now he blames Obama...the Tweets don't just go away.

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 you are referring to Article 43 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), then it states this, with my emphases added:

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

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.

So, as you can see, yes, we are bound, as memebers of the United Nations, to "contribute to the maintenance of the international peach and security" with armed forces or military actions, if necessary under an agreement with the U.N. Security Council.

However, the president MUST obtain congressional approval for such action, per our constitution (and as noted in the U.N. Charter).

But they are 'legal' according to our UN membership.

Nope, they aren't (see above and below).

The POTUS still needs congressional approval before taking military action, even under the umbrella of the UNSC. The United Nations Participation Act (1945), signed into law by our own country, makes that reality even more clear:

SEC. 6. The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.

There is more to Section 6, and it does discuss times when the president does NOT need congressional approval to participate in a UNSC operation, but those don't include offensive military strikes.

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.

Well, now that I'm behind 100%.