Posted on 04/07/2017 7:07:02 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
And Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch might agree with you, or might not. But there are times when there is no time available for congressional niceties, particularly when the remaining Democrats in congress are treating every congressional action as a partisan event.
You know who Nikolay Shashkov is?
You want an American President to wait for Congress to act, as three dozen American sailors have just been killed? What is the cost if you delay your reaction, and what is the cost if your decision is the wrong one?
Not necessarily. To repeat myself:
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8: Powers of Congress:
Enumerated powers
The Congress shall have power. ... .
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises. ... .
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations. ... .
Congress can declare war, but it is the President, as Commander-in-Chief, who must prosecute the war, via the armed forces. Similarly, the Congress sets the laws and penalties against piracy- and violations of the Law of Nations- but it is the Chief Executive who will direct the action required thereof, as, for instance, ordering the launching of several dozen TLAM missiles from Navy ships.
The violations of the Law of Nations in this case would be The Geneva Gas Protocol and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, the grounds for the conviction and hanging of one Saddam Hussein.
Do individual congressmen return home to their districts to collect taxes? No, of course not, they write the tax code, and the Executive Branch does the dirty work. Same deal with raising the price for the use of chemical weapons in Syria as 30,000 AMERICAN TROOPS ARE BEING READIED TO GO THERE.
We have troops there because we’re going after ISIS. Trump thankfully promised to destroy ISIS during the primary and election campaign.
Nope. Assad was no threat to this country under any scenario. NONE!!flagrant violation of the constitution.Very dangerous and totally reckless.
“There is one Constitutional remedy for any President who wages war against the will of the People as represented by the Congress: impeachment.”
That’s the *legal* remedy, however there are many *political* remedies under our Constitution.
In our history the political remedies have been frequently used.
People won’t find a clear legal definition of authority here because it is left to be decided politically. The Founders knew all possible situations could not be accounted for in the Constitution.
And, who in their right mind wants the use of chemical weapons to become acceptable and the new normal?
Take a chill pill. It's not like Trump decided to invade Syria and overthrow Assad.
He sent a message to the world we're not going to rollover and do nothing anymore like we did under Obama. That is a message North Korea and China needed to receive.
We have zero right to have troops there. None. Explain our legal right to be in a sovereign nation that has done nothing to us whatsoever.Does China have a right to come fight for black lives matter? This is a civil war!! We have absolutely no business there. It is a violation of international law, the UN charter. It is unconstitutional as hell and it HELPING ISIS!! Have we lost all perception of law. This is insane!!
The founding fathers “there would be times when the President needs to use immediate military force unilaterally and without the extensive time it might take for Congress”
Dear friend that is only in the context of an attack ON THIS NATION or an imminent threat to this nation. Not fabricating a pretext to go fight on the wrong side in a civil way 8000 mikes away!! your proposition is absurd.
We did not retaliate against ISIS. We retaliated against a WMD attack on ISIS. Further, the threat was not imminent. And further, this raid did absolutely nothing to destroy the WMD stockpiles. Apparently we did not target what we believed to be their stockpiles. We only targeted the delivery systems. And there are reports that sorties have been launched from that airport today.
During the campaign he said he would “knock the hell out of isis”.
This is not that.
Who wants our troops in Syria potentially exposed to chemical weapons?
It will be a lot easier getting civilian cooperation in defeating ISIS if we make it clear we won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons.
The gas attack was nowhere near ISIS-controlled territory. ISIS was the target of attack.
The Russians and Assad are doing very little to fight ISIS. They are focused on other rebel groups closer to Damascus.
Bullshit. We have every right and an obligation to destroy ISIS. The Syrian government gave us permission to do that.
That is something Trump promised to do and one of the reasons he won the nomination and Presidency.
And, the missile attack helped OUR TROOPS, not ISIS. ISIS is nowhere near where the attack took place. Chemicals weapons should not be being used in a country where we have troops.
I don't.
You really should save your outrage to oppose going to war in Syria. That's what would be the mistake and that's what conservatives should be telling the President.
You are failing to ask the question— THE SIMPLE QUESTION— WHO’S WEAPONS ARE THEY????? They are ISIS WEAPONS— Not the Syrians!!
It’s the authorization they are operating under because they say it’s what the’re operating under. They don’t say anything about piracies and law of nations.
True. We did not strike Isis. We hit the Syrian military.
I have yet to see PROOF that Syria gassed the anti-Assad rebels location.
Nor proof that it was sarin.
Who other than Russia or Syria could have gassed the location using an aircraft? Those are the only two options.
Assad has chemical weapons and they were being stored at the air base we struck.
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.