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.
Under the war powers act which authorizes Trump’s actions here. He met all legal obligations of notice and it was accepted by both sides.
The anti-Trumps need to back off.
The six-page National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction is based on the classified National Security Presidential Directive 17, which the president signed in September 2002. That directive is official U.S. policy.
According to the strategy, the Bush administration’s approach to dealing with weapons of mass destruction rests upon “three pillars”: counterproliferation, nonproliferation, and WMD consequence management.
Devoted to denying, preventing, and responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction by other countries or terrorists, the administration’s strategy is predicated in part on the continued possession and possible use of nuclear weapons by the United States.
The strategy suggests that the United States might retaliate with a nuclear strike in response to a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack on the United States, U.S. troops, or friends and allies. “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force—including through resort to all our options—to the use of WMD,” the strategy warns. Previous administrations have made similar statements at various times despite a long-standing policy not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states unless they attack the United States in alliance with a nuclear-weapon state.
This in combination with the War Powers Act equals a shut the hell up to the anti-Trumps.