Stooo wrote:Didge wrote:Is anyone going to debate my points or prove how some on the left are snowflakes?
What were they again?
Please don't ask.
I don't have the enthusiasm.
Stooo wrote:Didge wrote:Is anyone going to debate my points or prove how some on the left are snowflakes?
What were they again?
Maddog wrote:Grafenwalder wrote:Maddog wrote:Grafenwalder wrote:Questions are already being raised over whether Trump broke constitutional law by not seeking approval from Congress. Seems he also had a short term memory failure given the tweet he banged out five years ago in 2013.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/373146637184401408?lang=en
The last 10 presidents have ignored the constitution in terms of military action.
Not so according to this.
Obama sought congressional approval for 2013 military intervention in Syria. Statements from multiple lawmakers, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), cited failures of the Obama administration in their support of President Trump. The fact is President Obama sought to use force in Syria in 2013, and Congress did not approve.
Here also is a list of Trumps tweets he made at the time. Interesting eh?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 100154318/
and now...
Top Republicans who opposed Syria attack under Obama are now praising Trump's strike
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/poli ... index.html
Did Congress approve Obama's strikes?
There are a handful of congressmen from both parties that opposed Obama's strikes and Trumps strikes.
Those are the handful that are not hipocrites.
Grafenwalder wrote:Maddog wrote:Grafenwalder wrote:Maddog wrote:Grafenwalder wrote:Questions are already being raised over whether Trump broke constitutional law by not seeking approval from Congress. Seems he also had a short term memory failure given the tweet he banged out five years ago in 2013.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/373146637184401408?lang=en
The last 10 presidents have ignored the constitution in terms of military action.
Not so according to this.
Obama sought congressional approval for 2013 military intervention in Syria. Statements from multiple lawmakers, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), cited failures of the Obama administration in their support of President Trump. The fact is President Obama sought to use force in Syria in 2013, and Congress did not approve.
Here also is a list of Trumps tweets he made at the time. Interesting eh?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 100154318/
and now...
Top Republicans who opposed Syria attack under Obama are now praising Trump's strike
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/poli ... index.html
Did Congress approve Obama's strikes?
There are a handful of congressmen from both parties that opposed Obama's strikes and Trumps strikes.
Those are the handful that are not hipocrites.
The point is he sought it where Trump hasn't and simply ignored it altogether from what i've seen. There's a good article here which sums up the US problem.
Republicans reprimanded Barack Obama for Syria strikes. But for Donald Trump, who has no regard for the national interest or rule of law, anything goes.
GOP leaders and the House and Senate seem perfectly fine with Trump skipping over their authority to launch an attack that could provoke an escalating reaction from not just Syria, but Iran and Russia — its two sponsors that have interests, assets and personnel inside the country. Maybe these Republicans know something we don’t know.
Of course, there was a time when the right overwhelmingly argued that a president needed the congressional OK before striking Syria to enforce a “red line” against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons.
That time was 2013 — when, you guessed it, Barack Obama was president.
The GOP Congress had no such compunctions in 2017 when Trump was president and essentially allowed the administration to justify the attack under the War Powers Resolution.
This 1973 law epitomizes our modern Congress’ ambivalent approach to its exclusive authority to declare war as granted it in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. The law constrains the president from non-defensive war without congressional approval while also limiting military deployments that aren’t a response to a direct attack to 60 days after the executive branch reports the hostilities to Congress.
So basically, it says, “Don’t start a new war of choice. But if you do, let us know and don’t do it for more than two months.” Big help.
Not only is law nearly useless and possibly unconstitutional, it only matters if you have a Congress willing to check the president’s power and a president willing to let his power be checked.
Congress has all but abdicated this role, with shockingly few exceptions. The administration, on the other hand, has made claims of powers beyond those that should exist in a democracy or a nation with laws.
“President Trump has claimed an extreme view of the president’s Article II powers — for example, saying falsely that he has an ‘absolute right’ to do whatever he wants with the Justice Department,” said Justin Florence, a former Obama administration lawyer.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 510940002/
Maddog wrote:It was never voted on.
Congress didn't want to vote then, and they didn't want to vote now, because those votes force a congressmen to take a position that he or she will have to defend.
It appeared that Kerry did not doubt that Obama would enforce the red line, and soon Obama would reinforce that perception with his own statement from the White House. “It’s important for us to recognise that when over 1000 people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99 per cent of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we’re sending a signal that that international norm doesn’t mean much. And that is a danger to our national security,” he said.
But in the days after the statement Obama softened. According to Jeffrey Goldberg’s essay on the period in The Atlantic magazine Obama had come to view a military strike unsanctioned by either international law or Congress - and without popular support from the American people - as a mistake.
Grafenwalder wrote:Maddog wrote:It was never voted on.
Congress didn't want to vote then, and they didn't want to vote now, because those votes force a congressmen to take a position that he or she will have to defend.
Hence why he didn't launch an attack. As i previously said Obama sought approval of Congress asking for authorization, (it's even in the tweet you linked!) Trump wasn't bothered and that's the difference which seems to be what you're misunderstanding. Same here in UK at the time, Cameron sought parliamentary backing for an attack, didn't get it so that was that. Questions are now being raised about May's actions too.It appeared that Kerry did not doubt that Obama would enforce the red line, and soon Obama would reinforce that perception with his own statement from the White House. “It’s important for us to recognise that when over 1000 people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99 per cent of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we’re sending a signal that that international norm doesn’t mean much. And that is a danger to our national security,” he said.
But in the days after the statement Obama softened. According to Jeffrey Goldberg’s essay on the period in The Atlantic magazine Obama had come to view a military strike unsanctioned by either international law or Congress - and without popular support from the American people - as a mistake.
Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests