Posted on 05/07/2022 11:04:27 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Actually the German military advised against it, but Hitler decided he had to show that the alliance with Japan meant something.
Ford trucks were produced in German plants from 1939-41 and were preferred by the Wehrmacht for their reliability, even over German companies' production.
There is no such requirement and it’s exactly the kind of thing you don’t overly publicize.
The problem is, declaring war on another nuclear power isn’t a good idea.🙄
Your source for this neo-liberal propaganda?
In the current war in Ukraine, the US is a cobelligerent, not a belligerent.
A Congressional declaration activates the treason clause, so that opposition to the war past a certain point or trading with the enemy becomes treason.
No one ever considered this to be a legal restriction on the President's use of the armed forces before Vietnam, but Presidents normally had to obtain Congressional action simply because US forces were too small for any substantial engagement. But they were freely used in many smaller engagements like Haiti, gunboats in China, Central America, etc., without Congressional authorization.
We even bought a large quantity of plutonium from Russia for the same reason and helped them to make sure their nukes were secure after the Soviet Union collapsed.
A lot of this work was done through the International Science and Technology Center, funded mainly by the EU, US and Japan.
You can view their annual reports here: https://www.istc.int/view-reports
So whatever Constitution you're talking about is not ours.
Russia has top down surveillance on Ukraine for decades and shouldn’t whine. Even knowing where every single piece of Ukie hardware is at all times, they failed to gain territory everywhere that is majority Ukrainian.
This is simply making the fight closer to a fair duel with equal technology. Instead of a superpower with spy satellites beating down on a blind neighbor.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution indicates that Congress has the power to declare war. On the other hand, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution identifies the President as the “Commander-in-Chief” of all U.S. military forces. Traditionally, this has been interpreted to mean that only the Congress can declare war, and that once that is done, the President will be responsible for leading those military activities.
This distinction has also been interpreted to mean that the President can take steps to act defensively of the national interests, but cannot take preemptive military action. In other words, under the U.S. Constitution, the President is only authorized to repel invasions and sudden
attacks without a formal Congressional declaration of war. Any undeclared offensive military actions are not executive branch powers.
No it isn't. Only a direct attack by our forces would be a belligerent act. As I said, we are only co-belligerents. Which also means any purported Constitutional restrictions do not apply.
You can make the argument that doing so is risky, might provoke the Russians to escalate, etc., which are rational if not (as I believe) valid arguments. But you can't invent new law out of whole cloth to get your preferred policy choices. That's what the Left does.
That twaddle you mention is in the constitution. Only Congress has the power to declare war.
As I said, this is a novel interpretation that arose during the Vietnam War. It would mean an enemy could line up forces along a US border and unless Congress acts the President would not be legally authorized to act until we were actually attacked, which is nonsense on stilts.
I can't think of any American President accepting this line of reasoning in over two centuries.
The Founders thought the power of the purse would constrain any large-scale Presidential adventurism, as it largely did until after WWII. What they were primarily concerned about was Presidential abuse of indictments for treason, for which there was plenty of evidence in English history. The declaration clause is clearly tied to limiting the power of the Federal government to make accusations of treason.
What Congress can't do is fund a large military and then try to exercise command authority over the military by controlling the sharing of intelligence or other dispositions of the military forces under the President's command. If it doesn't like what the President is doing, Congress can always cut the budget or impeach the President.
The Founders were wise enough to know that if Congress voted $700 billion for defense because of the magnitude of perceived threats, the last thing anyone would want is that bunch of corrupt gasbags interfering with the use of the military forces they paid for.
“Under international law, a state of war can exist whether or not Congress acts,“
The US Constitution trumps any so called “international law.”
Cool story bro...but there have been multiple deadly outbreaks near these US funded "research" facilities in recent years, and it doesn't take three decades years to clean up old Soviet laboratories. Also, the arch neo-liberal Victoria Nuland spilled the beans about these labs recently while testifying before the Senate Intelligence committee, and the Russians have shared incriminating documents they gained access to in Ukraine...so spare us the hasbara.
Like the Left, you guys just twist the Constitution to mean whatever you want to get your preferred policy choices.
If you believe anything the Russians are saying about Ukraine, you're a genuine imbecile.
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.