president of peace everybody

2/3 of Congress is owned by AIPAC so it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

OMG that's hilarious. We haven't declared war since WWII. But how many presidents have done just that? Good luck with that argument.

“I don’t care what that old paper says” -Trump

Diaper Don gonna order brown people to get bombed so he 'looks like a tough man".

Fuck that guy and everyone who voted for him. Or chose not to vote. Fuck you even more.

There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that those who didnt vote would have voted for Harris. In fact, every person I know who didnt vote are trump defenders. Every one. Every. Single. One.
Fuck you even more.
I've never understood this pov. Sure you can say no vote was the same thing as a vote for trump, but surely the people that actually voted for him are worse, no? I can understand 'fuck you just as much', but even more?
- It's the apathy, or the belief that it somehow doesn't matter. To quote Walter Sobchak:
  Nihilists, fuck me. Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos.
"Looks like a tough man". Is this really the level of political comprehension we're working with? No wonder you idiots elected a fascist. Are all of you 12? Go back to playing fortnight.

Congress has been shirking their responsibility to declare wars since the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. They gave Presidents the power to carry out military actions abroad without a formal declaration. By passing the responsibility on to the president, Congress gets to avoid the blame for unpopular wars.

Even the Vietnam "War" which lasted 10 years, was never declared by Congress.

Went thru the same shit with Bush 20 years ago.

Indeed. Congress had 20 years to put up some guard rails, but didn't.

Come on it is not a war, but a special military operation....

A "Police Action."

The constitution means nothing. Trump wipes his ass with it and there’s no consequences

SCOTUS ignored common law practice and decided to go literal with the interpretation of a document written 200 years ago

Remember Vietnam?

The president has the power to deploy the military even without a declaration

This is why Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. It's an open question whether the law matters.
Every President says they are not constrained, Congress says that they are. The Supreme Court says, "this is a political question, not a legal question, so the executive and legislative have to sort it out".
- The Supreme Court lied when they said that btw
- Then it’s no longer a constitutional problem, I think the poster should know better
In the sense that if you take power you don't deserve you have it

He's not wrong. Definition of genocide and war crimes are also pretty clearly enshrined. As are our countries laws against funding them.

yhea, Have you seen the news?
rule of law is dead in the US

Ok, so he breaks the law, AGAIN… that’ll be how many times? And how many consequences? And how will he be punished? Who will punish him? Remember, this is an insurrectionist that the administration from 17-21 did not go after because it would have been “taken as political”. So, again, who cares what the law says, because he doesn’t.

Trump has already been impeached twice. What else could they do except attempt to remove him from power, and with what army?
- Uh, my point exactly. Mother fucker thinks he’s untouchable because he is. The GOP have kneecapped our democracy to the point that if you are in power, you can do whatever the fuck you want.
- Being impeached doesnt inherently carry consequences.
  If you think of it like a trial, the house delivers the guilty verdict (impeachment), and the senate determines the sentencing. The senate basically said, "yea so what? No consequences"
  If the senate would do their job too, impeachment would mean something
I think that at this point people should settle on the fact that the only consequences Trump will ever face is in a history book 30 years after WW3/Civil War 2.
Well except in the Reconstruction States because there will be a number of lies that will endure forever, similar to the Lost Cause and Stabbed in the Back myths.
maybe cynicism will help
- I think cynicism is keeping a vast majority of Americans peaceful right now. We are being told we need to be peaceful, we feel the need to fight. We all cope with this insanity in different ways man.
Eh, he's not the first president to do so. Not to dismiss your own anger at this, but not everything can be the absolute last straw.
We’re waiting on the Kilmar contempt case still aren’t we? (Refusal to turn the planes around)

If they haven’t noticed. Trump does whatever the fuck he wants. If he ignores the ruling of courts, do they think he will read a post on X and be like “oh shit, you’re right.” No, posts on X are fucking useless. He will ignore congress like he does everything else. His ego is severely damaged after the little parade and leaders not worshipping him at G7. He is realizing his place in the food chain and looking for a win to boost his ego.

Yeah unfortunately that is not actually the way the law is written Bernie. Wish it was.

Short version, the president gets to deploy the military where ever he wishes (outside the US, posse comitatus etc). That includes invading a sovereign nation or raining missiles down on one.

Only congress has the power to declare a war, but the Potus gets to defacto kick off the war and then dare congress not to back him.

After it was either 60 or 90 days, I forget, congress gets to "review" the decision, the problem is they have no power other than financial if they wish to stop the war. So the only thing they can do is turn off the finances to the military, and wait for the money to run out - which is generally up to a year. They have no way of forcing the president to desist other than impeachment or cutting off the funds.

They can pass a motion, or even legislation, which the Prez can then veto, pointless. If they can muster the 2/3rds of congress they can remove him via impeachment.

Edit, spelling correction and to note that I can pull out the full details if needed - was discussed heavily on reddit a while ago

This is how we ended up with the Iran-Contra Scandal. The Reagan administration wanted to fight the growing communist forces in Nicaragua, but Congress forbid them, and denied them funding.
They decided to find the money by selling highly inflated arms to our bitterest enemy at the time, IRAN, only a few short years after they had held our Embassy officials hostage for over a year.
They took the profits of those illegal arms sales, and used it to finance their illegal war on Central America.
So these traitors don't even take no for an answer when Congress shuts off the money tap.
Its like choosing the president is a really important decision.
- Sounds like more should have been done to prevent trump even getting on the ballot while his opposition was still in power. Oh wait, but then they couldn't run on "trump bad" and would actually have to champion something for the people to get their votes. Oh well!
- But genocidal Kamala is just as bad! I was informed about it multiple times by accounts on .ml (and not all of them are operating exclusively during Moscow working hours)
What congress can do is refuse to pay for the war/police action. They still need to write the checks. Wars don't last long with out money.
the president gets to deploy the military where ever he wishes (outside the US, posse comitatus etc). That includes invading a sovereign nation or raining missiles down on one.
That is how it's been interpreted, it's not actually what the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution. They wanted congress to be a check on the presidents 'commander in chief' role by reserving the right to declare war for congress. If the president can still effectively declare war without a declaration of war, it's the same as not having that check in the first place. It's basically a loophole that presidents have been using to do illegal things
After it was either 60 or 90 days, I forget, congress gets to “review” the decision, the problem is they have no power other than financial if they wish to stop the war.
It's 60 (with an additional 30 days to withdraw the forces) as outlined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This was an attempt by congress to close that loophole.
It's true that they can cut off funding (as per Section 5c of the WPR), but congress pretty much already had that power as per the constitution and that's not actually their only recourse. It's still technically illegal for the president to do that (which means squat thanks to the SCOTUS) but he can be challenged through the courts for it. He could also be censured and as you mention impeached for it. None of those things are likely to happen now, but my point is Bernie is basically technically correct if not practically correct.
- That is how it's been interpreted, it's not actually what the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution. They wanted congress to be a check on the presidents 'commander in chief' role by reserving the right to declare war for congress.
  Agreed, the founding fathers definitely didn't want a king who could wage war at his whim, but unfortunately the constitution as drafted didn't envisage a standing army under the bidding of the President, it expected militias to be levied for defense as required.
  It's still technically illegal for the president to do that (which means squat thanks to the SCOTUS) but he can be challenged through the courts for it.
  Kinda but not really. Something is only illegal if it is within the powers of the lawmaker to bind in that way. If the constitution doesn't provide that power then it is ultra vires and as if the law didn't exist. Unfortunately the constitutionality of the 1973 act is definitely questionable - I listed more in another response but
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions_regarding_constitutionality
  and
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Clinton
Yup. Someone has to be the ultimate commander of the military. Unfortunately (at least right now) POTUS is the commander in chief of the military.
So while his actions may not be a formal declaration of war, they certainly can cause a foreign nation to declare war on the USA.... Which simply pulls the US into a state of war regardless.
Can you guys not vote convicted felons suffering from dementia into the white house?
That would be great....
Sincerely, a Canadian.
- Not American, but I am in favour of convicted felons not being in the White House too
- Can you guys not vote convicted felons suffering from dementia into the white house?
  You’re right. Next time we should vote for someone respectable! Someone who has experience! Someone who went to a good school and is smart! Someone who hasn’t been convicted of a crime! Someone like that would NEVER illegally start a war of aggression on false premises! Such a completely hypothetical scenario is basically ~~unmemorable~~ unimaginable!
Your comment contradicts the Wikipedia entry...
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. ch. 33) is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".
- Scroll down that page to the section about "Questions regarding constitutionality" after reading that, also consider
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Clinton
  Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000),[1] was a case holding that members of Congress could not sue President Bill Clinton for alleged violations of the War Powers Resolution in his handling of the war in Yugoslavia.
  Further reading
  https://www.npr.org/2011/06/16/137222043/why-the-war-powers-act-doesnt-work
  https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL31133
  https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/RL33532.pdf
  https://www.propublica.org/article/what-exactly-is-the-war-powers-act-and-is-obama-really-violating-it
  TL;DR a law being passed that intends to achieve a certain outcome is not the same as it actually achieving the outcome. The law intended to constrain the president but failed because it had no enforcement mechanism and could be vetoed by President
  As Bernie well knows because he twice sponsored a change to the law that was vetoed by trump (2019 & 2020) - See your wikipedia page in the sections for Yemen and Iran

Unfortunately our Constitution isn’t worth the paper its gift shop reproductions are printed on. Unfortunately, it’s been that way for a long, long time.

Ummm, has that ever stopped any president, ever?

Can we not pretend like this hasn’t happened numerous times in the past. The US hasn’t been in a war since WW2 and yet somehow we keep ending up killing people in other countries.

Do Vietnam and Korea not count as wars?
- Or Indonesia, Laos, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Cambodia, Iran, Lebanon, Granada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, Congo, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan, Philippines, Syria, Yemen, Somalia again, Libya, Niger, South Sudan...
- Can't lose a war if you retroactively count it as not a war 😎
- They all did. They were just not formally declared, doesn't make it less of a war in practice, but it does in the context of the law in discussion. Loophole mechanics.
- I think Korea does and Vietnam doesn't (to the US) or vice versa. I think one was conducted with the US officially entering the war and one "in support of" a participant of the war.
  ...but its all games to get around congress having to vote to go to war.
Why do you let them set the narrative that a precedent of wrongdoing legitimizes future trespasses?
- Im only pointing out that Bernie’s tweet is political posturing. The president had used troop deployments to enter wars that congress did not approve. Bernie acting like him tweeting how it’s illegal is gonna do anything is so stupid.
  Don’t get me wrong I love Bernie but again this is political posturing. Propose articles of impeachment or stfu. Btw we’re already “at war” with Iran. Ted Cruz confirmed that they approved the missile strikes and have been providing guidance and support to maintain Israel’s advantage.
- While offensive war is definitely wrong (I don't personally think defending yourself is wrong however, although some will differ), none of the undeclared wars that the US has been in since WW2 have been illegal under the laws of the United States.
  POTUS has the right to send in troops, Congress has the right to declare a war but if they don't declare war that doesn't change the fact that the POTUS is legally allowed to send troops in, particularly for UN peace keeping (ie Korea, Former Yugoslavia), but even in the absence of an international umbrella.
  As per post above the US president can defacto start and run a war until congress turns off the financial taps or impeaches him, only they can declare a war, and they don't like doing that, hence the last 80 years of defacto but undeclared wars
we keep ending up killing people in other countries
Excuse me, this is called "defending our interests".
- Ironically a war with Iran is against America’s interests. Before Trump was president most conservative war hawks vehemently opposed a war with Iran even though Netyahoo has been claiming they’re “6 months away from mass producing nuclear weapons” since 1995.

Impeach Trump #NOKINGS

I mean, the Constitution of the United States is also very clear the fucker wasn't eligible to BE President again, but we all seem to have just shimmied right past that as well.

Do you mean because of the insurrection? I think there's something in that part about Congress needing to do something too, so Congress dropped the ball on that.
- The DoJ was a big help too

Bernie should be aware of the war powers act. It's one of the worse pieces of legislation ever, but it makes the whole declare war thing largely meaningless.

The act gives a president the ability to perform military actions provided Congress is notified within 48 hours of the action happening. Then the president gets a free 60 days to do whatever without additional approval. Then there's a further 30 days where forces should be withdrawing if there is no further congressional approval. However, that timeline doesn't really matter, as the Supreme Court ruled under Clinton that of troops are gone by the time the case gets to them then it doesn't really matter that the law was violated.

He should also be aware of this legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001
... since he voted for it.
It allows military actions against any country that harbours al Qaeda... and Iran does harbour al Qaeda along with any terrorist group that aligns with their "death to Israel / America" dogma.
- I also like the American Servicemembers Protection Act, which is a 2002 federal law that basically says, "if you try to charge any U.S. soldier or official for a war crime in the International Criminal Court, we will invade the Netherlands."
  No, really.
- No it doesn’t. Iran and Alqaeda are practically enemies.
- The whole civil war in Syria was an example. Assad was being backed by Iran, Syria's current president Ahmed al-Sharaa started as an al Qaeda fighter because al Qaeda was aligned against the government, whereas Hezbollah backed it.
  You can't understand the middle east unless you understand the Shia and Sunni groups and their hostility towards each-other. Pretending Iran supports anybody that says "death to America" means you're about as knowledgeable about middle east politics as George W. Bush who tried to explain everything with "they hate us for our freedoms".
- Repealed by the House of Representatives in 2021.

Are the generals going to refuse his orders? Is the legislative going to impeach him? Is anyone in American government going to do the job their very roles exist to do within the framework of power? What happens if he does? What's been happening as he violates the constitution, daily? When he violates the rights protected, seemingly, by nothing but a sheet of fucking parchment?

Whose going to stop him when he tries?

It's not that someone has to stop him, by himself Trump can scream till he's blue in the face and there won't be a war.
It's that someone has to enable him to do so, follow and carry out the order, and order others to, etc. Which have to follow and carry out the order too.
The military has been gearing up for war with Iran for a long time. They want to go at it.

"It's illegal"

Someone remind him that the supreme court has judged that the usa president can do any crime willy nilly

Trump clearly demonstrated over decades that he is unable to not break laws, and he was arguably elected because of that. Therefore, the most democratic thing would be to let him be a dictator. 🤷

You know, that technically, when he violated his oath of office the first time, he resigned from his position. Once you violate your oath of office you no longer hold that office. You can do whatever you want to him, worse case scenario you have to wait for a pardon

Yeah but these laws are only meaningful if they’re enforced
- I asked Merrick Garland if Trump had done anything wrong and he just shrugged and said "There's no way for us to know for sure so we didn't want to take any chances by pressing charges."
  Four years later, I feel like he made the right call. Imagine if the Biden DOJ had actually tried to press charges on Trump. Just imagine... I think we can all agree that their prudence and restraint really helped the US dodge a bullet.
- Meaningful laws for thee, laughable pretense for me
I wish the law worked that way, but there is no technicality that violating an oath of office triggers a resignation. Resignation is resignation.
- If anything, the interpretation of "official acts" by the Supreme Court explicitly shields him. He cannot be held legally responsible for any decision carried out as president, which is terrifying.
- It's abdication. He's already relinquished power. The reigns just need to be taken

After watching some of the footage on Saturday, it's annoying to think "these are the people who will need to pull off a coup?"

The POTUS has a window of discretion where he can act unilaterally without congressional approval. And they ALL have done so over many terms.

The hard stop is when congress needs to appropriate funds to pay for the war/police action.

Maybe we need to take away those powers and put Congress in control.
- Perhaps. Until there is a real crisis that does require immediate action. There is no good answer here. Have a window of discretion, or be unable to trigger action and get innocent people killed due to inaction.
  Which do you prefer?

Actually, the constitution IS ambiguous in how it defines war. If it weren't so ambiguous, presidents wouldn't be able to take advantage of the War Powers Act so easily - as they have done for decades.

The US hasn't declared war since WWII despite both red and blue presidents dropping untold bombs since then. The hubbub about Trump unilaterally carrying out "military action" is less about scary orange man, and more about an executive branch that has been concentrating power for decades under red and blue presidents alike. This, like many other things, is something that leftists have been sounding alarm bells about for ages.

Stop elevating the Constitution. It is an extremely weak, vague, and antiquated document that was written almost exclusively by 20 something, white, enslaving, landowing white males. I know of no other constitution that explicitly enshrines the right to enslave people. The US constitution is an embarrassment, and its no surprise its getting torn to shreds once the first unabashedly fascist shows up.

Pepperidge Farms remembers "police action" in Vietnam
- "Vietnam, stop resisting!"
Read a great article, over a decade ago, outlining how Congress has steadily given the Executive more and more power under every administration and every Congress. It had dates and links to every single event. Wish I could find that again.
Really it's surprising it took this long.

Even if we ignore the fact that he can easily coax our useless congress into agreeing, the entire government has done nothing but dance around this requirement ever since the end of WWII. You won't see a congressional declaration of war unless its literally WWIII.

That's not a war ! That's a 3 days military special operation !

-Russian Trump alter ego

This is literally the argument behind our indefinite occupation of South Korea. We've been doing a limited policing action for over 70 years. And every two years, the Congress gets a chance to vote on the NDAA that authorizes us to continue deploying troops over there. Every two years, Congress gives it a big old rubber stamp.
Same with the Philippines. Same with Thailand. Same with Cuba. Same with Iraq. Same with... well... easier to just show the picture.

There are 0 rules that explicitly state they apply to the rich (enough)

GWB : Hold mah beer.

I mean I'm not sure what to say to anyone that still thinks the Constitution is something the United States actually adheres to.

It's null and void the minute it gets violated at the highest levels of government with no repercussions and we've already crossed that line multiple times.

The Constitution is not valid anymore. The first step is to accept that fact. We're not going to get anywhere endlessly debating a document that isn't taken seriously by the ones capable of enforcing its mandates.

Oh. He must not.

And you're going to stop him, right?

Well, shit.

By Trump's rules: Have no plan, just do the opposite of what the liberals want

Now he has to

Taco’s a bitch, he’s leaking all this to get leverage to make a deal. He’ll pussy out and Iran knows it. They’re playing the same games with him but from a position of knowing he’s full of shit

And people really think congress wouldnt vote for war? Lol...

And if they do so be it, it's just a consequence of our representational democracy, however, it is their decision.
Seems pretty epicly pointless to try to force a vote against Israel's interests in the US congress. It will be unanimously shot down, like every other bill that Israel has any interest in.. Sanders know this. So why is he pretending a vote in congress is the big goal that we need to make noise about?
Sanders wont even call the war on Palestine a genocide. If he wants to actually do something effective here he should be forcing AIPAC to be registered as a foreign lobby, like JFK tried to do right before he was assassinated. Otherwise Bernie is just wasting everyone's time, and keeping the left busy yelling for a vote to happen that we have absolutely zero chance of winning.

What a sweet old man.

I think most of those congressional powers have been eroded for a very long time.

He’ll do what he wants without consequence, whine about it online as if he’s somehow the victim, and then continue to break more laws.

Keep pissing into the wind, Bernie.

The Constitution is NOT ambiguous!..........except 1A....and 2A....and 25A....you know what? It's NOT ambiguous on things that I disagree with!!

You’re right Bernie! But how are you, I, or anyone else going to stop him? I mean, somebody’s gotta do it…

Yeah, but nobody has given a shit about that since like... Korea?

oh hey so this is actually correct

Will there be a January 7 at the White House ?

Depends whats a January 7th?
- Tourism

uhhh ok sure but that doesn't mean loopholes exist

and like loopholes the founders knew abt, like its by design that the POTUS moves the military arround

to say that this is illegal isnt sensible, you might be against it but still

Ya congress's check to that is supposed to be the ability to cut funding

Well, we're waiting, any day now, determine away you useless feckless fuck.

He’s. it useless. He’s just alone. AOC and him are the only Democrats speaking out throughout this whole shit show

As soon as I see who wrote it, my mind reads it as "cleah."

We haven't followed that law in so long though