Posted on 04/07/2017 7:07:02 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
Trump just instigated an unprovoked missile attack on a Sovereign Nation that posed no direct or immediate threat to our National Security or American Citizens.
Explain to me why this act of war without any input from Congress is consistent with our Founding Documents and our Constitution?
I am glad Gorsuch will sit on SCOTUS instead of you. Gorsuch has much more knowledge of the US Constitution.
Of greater interest is Assad passing WMD to terrorists outside his borders...because that is a threat. Israelis caught him doing just that last year.
Seriously Wendle, you’ve lost it. Ranting and raving every day about everything. You are far beyond an angry poster. You’ll be bitching about something else come Monday and nobody is going to care about Trump lobbing some missiles off on Syria once 2020 rolls around and the Dummies are running Elizabeth Warren.
Chem weapons must be the “third rail” of the weapons world...80 civilian casualties and there is outrage and gnashing of teeth and launching of missile strikes. Yet thousands of innocent civilians are killed by conventional weapons in Syria and “meh”. Over a hundred civilians have been killed by Coalition forces over the last 6 months or so...should we retaliate against ourselves?
Later
Even though the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to declare war", there is no stated "penalty" for the President to act in his role as Commander in Chief.
So that canard doesn't hold water with critics of the President's action.
The fact is, the last time that Congress declared War was in 1941. Since then, there have been any number of "wars", "police actions", or whatever other semantics one would like to attach to such activity conducted under the auspices of the authority of the President.
There is one Constitutional remedy for any President who wages war against the will of the People as represented by the Congress: impeachment.
Inasmuch as no impeachment has ever been launched against any President since Congress stopped delcaring war in 1941, I doubt very much that this particular minor action will set any new precedents.
Then, of course, there's the War Powers Act to be considered. Mark Levin specifically cited this law in his discussion of the President's lawful, Constitutional actions.
Even among the most strict constructionists, there doesn't seem to be any compelling case to be made that such activities fall outside the President's Constitutionally delegated express and implied powers.
So my suggestion would be for people to focus on Constitutional reality, not butthurt theoretical whimsy...
See Treaties re WMD.
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8: Powers of Congress:
Enumerated powers
The Congress shall have power. ... .
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises. ... .
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nation. ... .
Congress can declare war, but it is the President, as Commander-in-Chief, who must prosecute the war, via the armed forces. Similarly, the Congress sets the laws and penalties against piracy- and violations of the Law of Nations- but it is the Chief Executive who will direct the action required thereof, as, for instance, ordering the launching of several dozen TLAM missiles from Navy ships.
The violations of the Law of Nations in this case would be The Geneva Gas Protocol and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, the grounds for the conviction and hanging of one Saddam Hussein.
Thank you.
Good Lord. Just stop it.
You seem to misconceive the issue. The Constitution specifies that Congress has the power to declare war, but it does not restrict the use of military force to declared wars. Throughout US history, presidents have exercised military force based on their power as commander in chief, on Congressional authorizations, on international agreements, and on exigent circumstances. Although most uses of military force have been without a formal declaration of war, they have been with Congressional approval in some respect, with Congress always able to end any war or use of force by cutting off funding.
bingo. US by its actions is clearly supporting ISIS, who condoned trumps attacks. helping ISIS is the opposite of what trump said he would do. the majority of trump supporters are against this strike. who cheered? isis, mccain, pelosi, the dems.
He claims a “naturalized born citizen” - whatever that is - is eligible to the presidency.
To directly answer the question you asked, I suspect the administration’s lawyers will point to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which gives the President 60 days to put US forces into hostile actions before having to ask Congress for further permission to act.
Now one could argue that this law, as enacted by Congress in 1973, vetoed by the President, then the veto was overrode by Congress, and still having not been struck down by the Supreme Court, can still be unconstitutional.
But as I heard from Justice Scalia, God rest his soul, when I had a chance to hear him speak, the Supreme Court can only hear cases brought to them by someone with standing.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php
JoMa
Please furnish the cite. of where God said that.
Yep.
Ever heard of manifest destiny?
I have. Ever read the Old Testament?
Now be sure to be honest with yourself because America shouldn't even be in the Mideast.
Supported, not supports. Trump is dedicated to wiping ISIS out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.