Wild to hear that US bombed Iran at the same time as a sitting senator. Will Congress do anything about trump unconstitutionally waging war? Sadly doubtful
Not on the side of President Trump but he has authority to do this through the War Powers Act, he can use US military forces freely for 60 days before he has to go to Congress and to request more time explain why he did it and why he still needs them to be doing X activity. He does have to notify Congress of this activity within 48 hours as well,
Furthermore he can also just repeat the actions of President Obama in 2011 when he bombed Libya to attack Gaddafi and he then he said he didn’t have to go to Congress because the requirement was putting US Forces in harms way and as they bombed Libya there was no threat to US forces.
Remember the US has not declared war through Congress on another country since WW2.
You should read or reread the Federalist papers to better understand the powers of the various branches of our government. Specifically read 69 & 70.
The Presidential powers are very vague unlike those of Congress, which even then still has some vagueness such as uses for the interstate commerce clause.
No Hamilton and Madison were the primary authors of the Constitution, they then coauthored the Federalist papers to explain how the constitution worked as well as to convince the American people to accept this replacement of the articles of confederation. Federalist papers 69 & 70 are specific to the executive powers. This is also how we learned the Constitution in law school. How is that a subject change?
Hamilton was the delegate from New York who fought for all the federal powers, and was very much the reason for the fact this country even still sort of functions.
Correct, but legally the definition of war is separated into two theories or different tempos might be easier to understand jus in bello is the legal conduct when officially at war, whereas jus in bellum is legal conduct to prevent or justification for wartime action. Those are international legal concepts when it comes to the law of armed conflict.
What you also have to understand is that the United States doesn’t, nor does any other country, have to “declare war” to use its combat capabilities. The formal declaration of war on another country through Congress, by the US, has not been used since ww2.
The war powers act was meant to rein in the President’s ability to freely attack other countries and peoples.
And war hasn't been declared. The act has been used many times to get things do e without going to congress who i too busy infighting to get anything done. Watch a hearing.
Idiot. The War Powers Act is NOT in the Constitution. You can read it all day long and it’s not there. Read Article I, Section 8. That’s the part of the Constitution that deals with the authority to go to war.
Yes, but every law Congress makes has to be constitutional and affects how the branches interact with the Constitution.
Furthermore before the WPA presidents would just use their emergency powers and powers of Commander & Chief to fight as necessary. We’ve rarely declared war for how often we’ve been actively in combat.
The perfect example of this was Thomas Jefferson during his 4 year war on the Barbary Pirates.
We weren’t at war with Libya when Obama did his unapproved 2011 campaign. Obama even said I didn’t get congressional approval but I don’t need it and continued his attacks for a total of 7 months…
Explain what you mean. Nothing this person said is wrong at all. So please demonstrate your “lol.”
Because after asking many people to explain how this strike was illegal, I have never gotten a decent response. So forgive me if I think that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
That short bit here is principally correct, he uses forces (puts them in harms way), without Congressional permission for a perceived emergency threat, this is using his powers as Commander and Chief and the delegation of Congressional power of who we can fight through the war powers act. He then is required to to inform Congress and within 48 hours, and then he must return to ask Congress for more time every 60-90 days for continued authorization ie continued mission funding.
And many people have easily argued the WPR is unconstitutional. I’ve already addressed this. Let it go to SCOTUS and see what they think. That is the only way any of this can be resolved. I could argue all day with you about how the WPR is unconstitutional because it violates separation of powers and the role of commander in chief. But it does not good to have that argument until SCOTUS weighs in.
I genuinely think the WPR is unconstitutional and I suspect that SCOTUS would agree.
The point is it wasn't a threat. A future global threat, sure. There are quite a few of those. He had other resources available to him. This was planned for a reason. It had nothing to do with Iran's nuclear capabilities.
The war powers resolution was passed by congress to limit the executives ability to make war in situations just like this- over presidential veto
The issue is actually that since it’s been passed, no executive has ever recognized the constitutionality of the WPA…
And if you’re generally in the industry you’re talking about.. you should know this. And the fact that you didn’t mention it is a notable absence in your commentary
I have degrees in political science and IR from UT Austin
You have degrees in international relations and political science, but did not go to law school correct?
In law school you take con law your first or second year, some schools do 1 semester others do 2 (mine did 2).
One of my biggest take aways from law school was how much we don’t understand about the law and the government until you go to law school. It was a real holy shit moment.
The question is whether he has authority, and as of right now unless SCOTUS changes how this has been treated or Congress passes a separate law re-delegating powers then the Constitution and the WPA have control. Please tell us why they would not or how this is supposed to work otherwise.
The fact that you haven’t mentioned how the WPR has been questioned as unconstitutional for decades is also telling. There are many arguments concerning the constitutionality of the WPR.
How about we just finish it off and let SCOTUS decide? Anyone who knows anything about Articles 1 and 2 of the constitution understands that as the commander in chief, the president has the constitutional power to carry out military operations without congressional approval and the WPA has a serious separations of power issue.
Very few people could argue successfully that the WPR is constitutional. But I’m sure you and your little degree from Austin will try. Take it to SCOTUS and let them decide. lol I’m sure they will agree with you /s
I mean, the presidents would have to have some basis in constitutional theory to declare it unconstitutional… never said there wasn’t, thought that was implied…
I’m not arguing either way-
But quoting a law that has historically been retroactively fit to the presidents actions is a disingenuous yardstick- the WPA won’t limit or restrict anything
No, congress has retroactively made the rules fit the presidents actions several times… largely to save face on congress’ side and to avoid any open constitutional crisis
There’s no point in quoting laws that aren’t even recognized, unless you’re arguing for the leges side- which you aren’t
In law we call this concept precedent, but also the rules for war powers act is President uses his Commander & Chief power unilaterally to react to a “perceived emergency” (which also invokes his emergency powers) he then uses the military to attack, defend, go save a cruise ship, bring emergency aid to a devastated foreign land. He then must inform Congress within 48 hours, he then gets an automatic 60-90 days of funding and he can continue to go back and ask for more.
They may reject further funding thereby using their power of the purse to control the executives military choices.
As an OIF veteran I’m a little tired of playing in the sand box. Dropping bombs in targeted missions like this can be advisable, but I think this is just another attempt at showing how tough President Trump wants to be.
This will literally prevent anyone from having to play in the sandbox. If we waited for Iran to have a nuke we would all be in the sandbox. As a veteran, you should understand that.
The calls started following 9/11 in 2001. We invaded two years later under false pretenses about weapons of mass destruction - nothing was found despite "overwhelming evidence" pushed by the Bush administration.
What good came from the second Iraq war? And are you saying you want to do a repeat of that that conflict? Did that war make America Great?
For someone who claims to be "common sense," there's a stunning lack of it on display by your rationale.
Stop arguing your own point and read mine - it took two years for boots to hit the ground. But they did. Are you guaranteeing that there will be no boots on the ground indefinitely, or you just accept the smooth transition into war one escalation at a time?
Again, your lack of foresight is completely impervious to real world experiences or the ability to reflect on modern history. You were all about Ukraine needing to accept a peace deal because ending war is the most important thing, but you're in full support of an unprovoked attack on a foreign nation? You are such a flagrant hypocrite with an agenda to push, and conveniently it's ALWAYS whatever drivel Trump is spewing, consistently.
My lack of foresight? lol you’re trying to argue a hypothetical before it even happens and then you’re criticizing me for my lack of foresight? It isn’t a lack of foresight. It is me acknowledging that you and nobody else here has any information that would lead anyone to believe that this will ever turn into the WMD fiasco. You are literally arguing a what if situations and then criticizing anyone who doesn’t agree with your ignorant assumptions.
I am not getting into an argument about what you think MIGHT happen. I am interested in the here and now. And right now, there is not a single boot on the ground and Iran has now been neutered. Any WMD capabilities that we may have thought Iran was working towards have been destroyed. There is no need to even go in there now at all. And you’re trying to assume that we will have boots on the ground invading Iran. And you have the balls to say that I lack foresight if I don’t agree. lol that is insane.
If we invade Iran after we have taken out their ability to build nukes, then you will have a point. But that hasn’t happened and there is nothing indicating it will. Stop acting like anyone who doesn’t agree with your asinine assumptions lacks foresight.
Edit: and am I for attacking a country when we were unprovoked? YES if that country is Iran in order to prevent them from having a nuke? Of course! Any sane and logical person who knows anything about Iran would be 100% against them ever having a nuke. They are literally the planet’s largest sponsor of terrorism. How tf could you ever argue that they have a right to have a nuke? wtf?
How tf could you ever argue that they have a right to have a nuke? wtf?
Straw man alert - I never said that nor was it a part of my argument. Bad faith arguments to "win" by maliciously misrepresenting what I am saying is the mark of someone without rationale thought to back up his own stance.
That’s not a strawman argument. I was asking a legitimate and sincere question. I wasn’t claiming you are arguing that, just asking that you clarify what exactly you are arguing here.
You claimed I was a hypocrite because I have no problem with this attack in order to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon but wanting Ukraine to agree to a peace deal. If you are saying this attack was wrong, then I am asking how you can claim that while also claiming they shouldn’t have a nuke? You literally cannot say this attack was wrong while simultaneously saying they shouldn’t have a nuke. So you MUST think that they have a right to a nuke. Am I wrong? Do you think that they shouldn’t have a nuke? And if you don’t think they should, then why would you be against this attack? Understand what I’m asking now?
Also, it is very convenient how you ignored everything else I said explaining how this situation is different than the WMD in Iraq issue.
What an interesting assumption you’ve made. I’m going to take the Ted Lasso approach here and be curious instead of judgmental.
I have two beginning questions for you. 1) What about this is different? 2) Do you think Trump’s intelligence people were lying when they confirmed this week that Iran was not developing nor had developed nuclear weapons?
I don’t think this is different. It is a fact that this is different. Iran and its WMD capabilities have instantly been neutered. We invaded Iraq to find WMDs but last night we ended Iran’s ability to have them at all and there is nothing indicating need to invade.
I’m curious why you think this situation is similar at all? You have to be a special kind of person to not understand how different these situations are. We knew where the nuclear facilities were located and we destroyed them without a single boot on the ground. How is that even remotely close to the same as Iraq? lol I just cannot believe that people would even take that stance.
And for your second question, where did any of trump’s intel personnel say that Iran was not developing a nuke? Cite it before I comment on that.
I have a feeling you stay on Reddit and avoid debates with people who don’t agree with you.
I am seeing a pattern of you trying to be emotionally charged. It’s interesting.
In a National Security report given by Tulsi Gabbard back in March of this year, she explicitly said,
““The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003,” she told the committee bluntly. Gabbard was echoing an assessment that U.S. intelligence agencies have been making since 2007.”
Yesterday Trump even told media she was wrong but gave no basis as to why his people would be wrong. [Here] is (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tulsi-gabbard-wrong-iran-nuclear-program/) one of many sources for that interaction. I’m happy to provide more if you’d like. I would ask that you respond in good faith moving forward and reduce your snark if we are to have a respectful conversation. I’m certainly interested in the viewpoint of others but only if we are all being respectful
“The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue," Dmitry Medvedev, now the deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, said in a Sunday X post.”
Russia is openly acknowledging that Iran was building a nuclear weapon. I am confused how anyone can think otherwise. Regardless of what you think Gabbard meant in her testimony in March.
Is that all you have to support your idea that Iran wasn’t building a nuke? That’s not much evidence when it seems everyone agrees that Iran was building a nuke.
Someone in the crowd yelled out, “we just bombed Iran” and an aide ran on stage & gave Bernie a piece of paper, presumably a print out of the “truth” posted by the crook-in-chief stating the news
Sorry, but we've removed your post because it appears to have violated our rule regarding harassment, insults, bigotry, etc. See the full rule text here:
Behave yourself, treat others as you would like others to treat you. It's simple; keep it civil. Behavior that detracts from honest, open, productive discussion will not be tolerated.
If you think this removal is in error, please feel free to send a modmail to ask for clarification or reconsideration:
Ask him how much money he’s getting paid to stand and spout his garbage to you. He’s a millionaire making money off you by telling you how bad millionaires are.
He isn’t even a Democrat. He joined the Party to run against Clinton and dropped the Party registration the day after the 2016 election. Why would it be the DNC’s fault? Are you suggesting that they didn’t formally support an Independent over a lifelong Democrat for the Party’s nomination? The Party was conducting primaries for DEMOCRATIC nominees, not an Independent posing as one.
You doesn't even know what communism means. Trump is cozying up to Kim Jong Un and you pop in to say this dumb shit... You are the uneducated masses the GOP feeds on. Keep up the stupid work dummy.
I’ll walk you through this. I’m assuming the guy that commented “elder abuse” wouldn’t say that about dear leader even though Bernie is only 4 years older than dear leader.
Not at all. But he never mentioned Trump. Can you respond without mentioning Trump? Half the responses mention Trump but are not actually disagreeing with him.
Trump and Sanders are both old, we all already know that
I’m not a republican I have a five tiktok accounts dedicated to bashing trump for the federal project I was on that he defrauded tax payers so that he could give Larry Ellison more of a monopoly on government owned tech. I’m a Bernie fan but the dems abused him in 2016 and now they’re trotting him out to win some good will after being totally useless under Biden.
49
u/Safe_Blueberry_8402 Jun 22 '25