Is the Constitution irrelevant now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this really all that different than the Obama air strikes?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-syria-air-strikes-legal-argument

While I do not approve of Obama’s military actions, I do think there is a difference between targeting terrorist locations within a country and targeting a government facility of a sovereign nation.

Are we pretending Obama didn't attack Libya just that way?

OP here. I remember a lot more discussion about the Constitutional issues during the Obama Administration. Now it's barely hinted at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this really all that different than the Obama air strikes?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-syria-air-strikes-legal-argument

While I do not approve of Obama’s military actions, I do think there is a difference between targeting terrorist locations within a country and targeting a government facility of a sovereign nation.

Are we pretending Obama didn't attack Libya just that way?

OP here. I remember a lot more discussion about the Constitutional issues during the Obama Administration. Now it's barely hinted at.

Yes, the difference in Libya was the existence of the UN Resolution that underpinned that mission. The question is whether the existence of the UN Resolution provided the US authorization to commit forces to conduct the air strikes. The remaining mission was predominantly conducted by UN forces.

Again, I don’t agree with Obama’s actions, but this isn’t really comparable to a unilateral airstrike on Iran by the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this really all that different than the Obama air strikes?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-syria-air-strikes-legal-argument

While I do not approve of Obama’s military actions, I do think there is a difference between targeting terrorist locations within a country and targeting a government facility of a sovereign nation.

Are we pretending Obama didn't attack Libya just that way?

OP here. I remember a lot more discussion about the Constitutional issues during the Obama Administration. Now it's barely hinted at.

Yes, the difference in Libya was the existence of the UN Resolution that underpinned that mission. The question is whether the existence of the UN Resolution provided the US authorization to commit forces to conduct the air strikes. The remaining mission was predominantly conducted by UN forces.

Again, I don’t agree with Obama’s actions, but this isn’t really comparable to a unilateral airstrike on Iran by the US.

Constitutionally they are the same. UN Resolutions do not replace Congressional authorization.

Which reminds me of another way the Constitution is irrelevant, entering into treaties with foreign powers. When's the last time the Senate signed off on one of those? And yet somehow Israel (and Ukraine lol) became "allies."

[Anonymous]

lol, OP
remember Serbia 1999?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Past Presidents helped normalize this, unfortunately. Of course Trump was going to act unilaterally. And Congress will do nothing about it. So yes, that aspect of the constitution is dead, but it has honestly been dying for some time.

So Americans have just accepted this? We were on a slippery slope, and we've now slipped off completely...so ::shrug:

GWB did seek Congressional approval for invading Iraq. We have on record people who knowingly or unknowingly told lies to secure it. Now we have Trump disagreeing with his DNI...and who knows what is the truth.

Air strikes are not an invasion. Obama conducted them on multiple nations without direct congressional approval.

Exactly.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this really all that different than the Obama air strikes?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-syria-air-strikes-legal-argument

While I do not approve of Obama’s military actions, I do think there is a difference between targeting terrorist locations within a country and targeting a government facility of a sovereign nation.

Are we pretending Obama didn't attack Libya just that way?

And Syria and Yemen. Same puppeteers, different president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lies

Please be specific...where are the lies?

[Anonymous]

2001 AUMF authorizes this action.

[Anonymous]

OP again. While I have my opinions, I'm not trying to debate the constitutionality of Trump's or Obama's actions. I'm noting that these kinds of actions do raise Constitutional issues...but this time around no one is really discussing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Past Presidents helped normalize this, unfortunately. Of course Trump was going to act unilaterally. And Congress will do nothing about it. So yes, that aspect of the constitution is dead, but it has honestly been dying for some time.

So Americans have just accepted this? We were on a slippery slope, and we've now slipped off completely...so ::shrug:

GWB did seek Congressional approval for invading Iraq. We have on record people who knowingly or unknowingly told lies to secure it. Now we have Trump disagreeing with his DNI...and who knows what is the truth.

Air strikes are not an invasion. Obama conducted them on multiple nations without direct congressional approval.

Then Trump has not invaded Iran.

Correct.