Posted on 06/21/2025 5:52:16 PM PDT by RandFan
I seem to recall Clinton ordering a missile strike on a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan back in August, 1998.....Operation Infinite Reach.
No beserkness occurred....
What precedent exists to establish the legal criteria to claim an AUMF is unconstitutional? You can't point to any precedent because there aren't any, and it's farfetched to think that SCOTUS would even touch such a case. It would say it's a political matter because Congress can rescind the AUMF at any time if it disagrees. Another baseless libertardian argument.
Iran is not a threat to the US. Has never attacked or invaded its shores as per what is generally meant and how the framers would have seen it in the 1770s
Factually challenged: Iran has been kidnapping and killing Americans directly or indirectly since 1979. The notion that the President must wait until US territory is directly attacked is another Constitutional fantasy originating in the 60s. TR threatened to raze Casablanca to the ground because a single American was kidnapped.
As far as the Framers go, they had a much better understanding of the realities of power politics based on English history and their own experience of war and the threat of being hanged during the Revolution than just about any current legal theorists. Being quite familiar with the abuse of military authority, if they had wanted such minute restrictions on Presidential military powers, they would have made them explicit.
The Founders, contrary to the belief of many, were not libertarians. Like the left, libertarians like to dress up their own baseless opinions as Constitutional principles as a way to impose the opinions of a small minority on the whole country without passing laws, winning elections, or passing Constitutional amendments.
? You don’t get more explicit than only “Congress” can declare war and fund it !
This is what they had in mind during that period
Military action to repel an invasion of the United States. An Actual threat not an imagined one thousands of miles away ?
They wanted the Congress to debate and vote on issues like this they did not empower= the president with King like powers (I now hate this term/argument since the left has stolen it but you get my point )
I appreciate you feel strongly on this and making thoughtful points even though I think they’re wrong
Also the AUMF is like a resolution it’s not a serious document in my eyes and its been in tact for over 24 years. They can and do claim anything using it. I think it’s silly myself and should not be used as justification.
None of this overrides the constitution
Donald did not even bother notifying Congress. Even GWB did that
It’s a serious concern. He’s assuming an imperial approach to the presidency on war powers. Some Freepers are short sighted this is a massive expansion of war making powers right now
You won’t like it when a Dem president uses this newly assumed approach, to use bombers and the army to take out his or her enemies or embroil the country in a serious war without even the courtesy of Congress
This is unprecedented and missed among all the war fever here
In 2015, Massie was the sole member of the House to vote "present" on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear agreement, citing Constitutional concerns that the treaties are not ratified by the House of Representatives and that he had no authority to vote for or against the nuclear deal.[50][51] In November 2016, he voted against an extension of U.S. sanctions against Iran, the only member of the House to do so.[52]Per John Kerry, who would likely agree with Massie, re:Iran:
Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) "tested positive for being an asshole" after he opposed the Senate-passed coronavirus stimulus bill...
As far AUMFs go, SCOTUS has already ruled they are the legal equivalent of a DOW. The fact that Congress may have acted idiotically or corruptly does not affect that, because any government can always act idiotically or corruptly.
For me, the first step in analyzing an issue like this dispassionately is to consider the exact opposite scenario. In this case, I would envision a scenario where an Obama administration launched military strikes against Israel in response to Israel’s attack on Iran.
What can say with 100% certainty is that almost every Freeper on threads like this who insists that the President has the authority to conduct military operations against a foreign nation without Congressional approval would be saying the exact opposite thing in my hypothetical scenario.
If you have any doubts about that, just go back to the discussions about January 6th and see what clowns like Mark Levin had to say about the authority of VP Pence to unilaterally reject electoral votes. Then go back to 2016 and see what he was saying when it was VP Biden who was presiding over the joint session of Congress and Hillary Clinton was whining about election fraud.
Trump had leading GOP members briefed in advance but left the Democrats in the dark. And guess what — there were no leaks. Considering that the lives of American service personnel were at risk, leaving the Dems out of the loop is hard to argue with.
Read the two Congressional Research Service papers I cited in post 240. Controversies over Presidential use of war powers provide many precedents.
In the event, such projected risks simply do not happen.
Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data - https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4324570/posts
Meanwhile,
"The Supreme National Security Council of Iran announces: anyone recruited by the Israeli Mossad must report by June 22 to one of the Basij bases, police stations, or the Ministry of Intelligence headquarters. They are to hand over their drones, UAVs, and equipment and in doing so may receive an Islamic pardon and return to the embrace of the nation."
I predict turnout will be light.
Obama and Biden and Clinton and Reagan and Bush have all “done” this.
Like it or not, I am hard pressed to think of a single president in my lifetime who hasn’t acted unilaterally militarily at some point during their terms.
War Power’s act allows it. Have to explain to Congress in 48 hours actions taken and can only have troops deployed for 60-90 days without congressional approval.
Those calling this unconstitutional need to explain why, and they also explain why other identical actions taken by newly every president for the last 50 years were okay.. since they weren’t complaining about them.
Yes....ALL ON THE STUPID ANTI-AMERICAN LEFT!
And a bomb damaged our ISREALI EMBASSY!! A HUGE NO NO!
I believe that some Pubbies DIDN’T VOTE.....NV
Not me.
What ever happened to the zot hammer?
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.