[pierrem15]

Horse manure. Congress has authorized the executive to impose financial and trade sanctions under a variety of circumstances and Presidents have done so for decades.

Arguing that the delegation is too broad is a reasonable argument that these grants of authority are too broad to pass constitutional muster. But appealing to the Declare clause is kookery.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Constitution and Congress furnish the President with an almost unlimited power to take actions that other nations might consider an act of war.

Many seem to think the Declare Clause limits the President's powers. As long as Congress grants the President a large army and navy and many other powers, it's primary effect is domestic because a formal declaration of war activates the Treason Clause.

[ifinnegan]

Yes. The problem is he is holding power illegitimately due to election fraud.

Abuses of power questions are secondary to the question of legitimate authority.

[Boogieman]

“the Constitution and Congress furnish the President with an almost unlimited power to take actions that other nations might consider an act of war”

As Clausewitz said “war is diplomacy by other means”, and the converse is also true, that “diplomacy is war by other means”.

[libertylover]

Thanks. I thought Armstrong’s writing was too broad, but I wasn’t really sure.