Posted on 04/07/2017 7:07:02 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
Trump just instigated an unprovoked missile attack on a Sovereign Nation that posed no direct or immediate threat to our National Security or American Citizens.
Explain to me why this act of war without any input from Congress is consistent with our Founding Documents and our Constitution?
It is clear that the Framers recognized there would be times when the President needs to use immediate military force unilaterally and without the extensive time it might take for Congress to consider the matter, then debate it and approve it. They chose to withhold from him only the power to declare war, not make war which was regarded as a vital emergency power allowed the president to counter or thwart foreign threats.
Hence it is perfectly consistent with the Constitution for President Trump to have taken action against the brutality of Bashar Al-Assad to prevent the spread and repeated use of chemical weapons. It is not only Syrian civilians the Commander-In-Chief is endeavoring to protect, but U.S. troops in the region and other American assets, all of whom stand in jeopardy.
No, it only requires Congressional approval to declare and fight a war. A single military action is not a war.
It's brainless to claim a President shouldn't have the immediate power to respond militarily to a threat without having to get Congressional approval.
No, it only requires Congressional approval to declare and fight a war. A single military action is not a war.
It's brainless to claim a President shouldn't have the immediate power to respond militarily to a threat without having to get Congressional approval.
So, you think chemical weapons attacks should be allowed to become the new normal when are troops are in the very country chemical weapons are being used?
That is insane.
Just because we shouldn't to overthrow Assad doesn't mean we have to tolerate the use of WMD.
Of course, we should and have to be if there are terrorist groups there threatening US and US citizens abroad.
Hunkering down and waiting for the terrorist to strike will result in something worse than 9/11 eventually.
What we shouldn't do is overthrow secular dictators and try to turn Islamic nations into pro-Western democracies. That doesn't work.
Well, you’re right about secular dictators. They bring stability to what would otherwise be chaos.
We have US troops in Syria and Syria had demonstrated that they had Chemical Weapons, had the capability to use them, and had shown that they would use them with such impunity to use them in civilians. Therefore a clear and present danger existed for our troops in country. So diminish there capability to use those weapons in the future
It is not. It is always interesting to watch the howling, gibbering and hooting chimp troupe bawl out their attempted justifications for it.
I am not sure what it is going to take to get the neocon cabal to divorce the idea that “patriotism” does not involve invading every d**n country on the planet so we can be “safe.”
This kind of reasoning that we go after them “over there” so we won’t have to face them “over here” is frankly, stupid and insane.
Go here for a legal definition of weapon of mass
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-288.8.html
Why do we have troops in Syria?
I agree.
What was the "threat"?
Why don’t you just shut up!!! The SANE World supports President Trump’s action. The INSANE World sides with Iran, Russia, and Assad! You’ve stated your position clearly, now stop trying to shout about the Constitution! History is full of cases where Presidents have taken action without the knowledge or consent of Congress. The US invaded French North Africa in November 1942 without any declaration of war against France. We still had diplomatic relations with France and its Vichy government although the Brits did not. Even our STATE DEPARTMENT knew nothing about Operation Torch on the orders of Roosevelt. Trump has not declared war. He has sent a loud message and was completely within his rights as Commander in Chief to do so. We have troops in the area acting as consultants. They are in danger of chemical attack and Trump has clearly stated there will be no further use of chemical weapons by the Assad Regime without SERIOUS consequence. Trump has acted in the best interest of the United States. You worry wort wimps should be proud America has finally found a leader who will restore us to leadership in the world instead of running around with your hair on fire denouncing our new President!!
AS I understand it, a president can initiate military action against a country to protect us against a probable future attack without congressional approval. a declaration war be done by congress.
Yup! Remember when she defied Bush’s request she not go there and she went anyway. There was a big question about the Logan Actt at the time but she got away with it.
Pelosi. Schumer. Graham. McCain.
It had to be done Mr Marlowe to demonstrate the Big Sleep from Obama is over...we don’t need any Playback from Assad in the Simple Art of Murder with the use of chemical weapons...
If it is Congress that is charged with enumerated power to "punish" violations of the laws of nations, then any use of military force to punish a violator would necessarily require a resolution by congress directing the manner of punishment. Read that section again carefully.
I think it makes specific congressional approval of this kind of action mandatory and not discretionary.
Constitutional or not any action must be based on a true threat and not a fake tbreat. It is important for any commander to have valid reasons behind any action, and that includes the commander in chief.
And the response should be proprtional to the threat.
If we assume the wmd threat to our troops in Syria is the only real basis on which this action was taken, then the response was not proportional because that threat is still there. The response was too little IF the threat had been real.
Where in that treaty does it authorize the President of the United States to unilaterally act as judge, jury and executioner and to bomb any country suspected of violating said treaty?
Where in the Constitution does it authorize the President of the United States to unilaterally “define and punish” alleged violations of this Treaty?
Is that not an enumerated power given to Congress? Did Congress direct the punishment for this violation?
At best, the president’s authority to act unilaterally against an imminent threat is assumed. It is no place specifically stated in the constitution. So, those who insist on a declaration of war or a letter of some lesser authorization are on solid ground.
Those who say the constitution implies a presidential authority to act as CINC are not entirely wrong. They just aren’t on solid ground.
The constitution says states cannot conduct war on their own, but that they have authority to act against an imminent threat until congress acts.
The assumption would follow that the CINC has that same responsibility for the nation as a whole.
But it is an assumption.
All current operations in Syria are acting they say under the Sep 11, 2001 congressional letter of authorization.
That’s why people like Rand Paul are calling it unauthorized and in need of new authorization.
I tend to agree with Paul. However, we must protect our forces scattered around the world rightly or not. We owe it to them to allow them to defend themselves and to be defended if larger weapons systems are needed.
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.