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?

Are we pretending that 2 wrongs make a right?

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?

We’re taking a look at it,
We’re taking a look at suspending what they call The Constitution.
They call it a suspension or we may decide to get rid of it.
We’ll have to see what happens.

Lotta people say we don’t need it,
Lotta people say it would be better not to have it.

So we’ll have to see.
We’ll have to see what happens.

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.

The vast majority of our congress is bought by AIPAC and DFMI PAC (Democratic Majority for Israel).

Trump would get congressional approval very easily. Even liberal congressman like Jamie Raskin would sign-on because they do not want to be hear the wrath their Jewish constituents.

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.

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.

Wat was never declared.

Now? Lol...
Read the Constitution then look at what the government actually does.

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.

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

Of course not. The Constitution is the law of the land.

The law is not fast, however. The president can act, including bombing another country, for a period of time before Congress authorizes or disallows military engagement.

The same is true of all of the novel actions that the president has recently made, including impoundment, firing heads and board members of independent or quasi independent agencies, cutting grants, unlawful tariffs etc. The Supreme Court has not yet reached these actions to say whether they are lawful or not. It's possible they will issue opinions this week. Or they may wait until the fall or later. In the meantime, the actions are not disallowed.

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.

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.

Lies

The Constitution is pretty clear on a few things. Congress holds the "power of the purse", and Congress gets to declare war. The reasons for this don't require a lot of thought. If a single President could make those decisions, they would effectively be a king in terms of unchecked authority. This is what we fought a Revolution to stop.

Trump has ignored Congress with respect to how or whether to expend appropriated funds. He has now started a war of his own volition. The Republican-led Congress will clearly do nothing about this. Tacit approval is not the same as explicit approval, which would require debate, external input, and the ability for voters to hold their representatives accountable for their decisions.

Despite the clear Constitutional questions, they are barely raised in debate and new coverage. Does this mean that the American public has moved on and no longer cares at all about whether we are following the Constitution?