NATION

PASSWORD

American Politics VII: Featuring the Demon Pumpkin Spice

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should the Senate Abolish the Filibuster?

Yes
92
50%
No, but reforms are needed
54
30%
No, it's fine as is
31
17%
Other(Let us Know!)
6
3%
 
Total votes : 183

User avatar
Kanadorika
Minister
 
Posts: 2573
Founded: May 04, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kanadorika » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:12 am

Immortan Khan wrote:
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:No they can't.

Oh yes they can. If POTUS wanted to, they could personally lead the army into battle and that's what Washington did during the Whiskey Rebellion.

POTUS has unilateral power to order nuclear strikes. It's not illegal for them to order them. The basis might be batshit insane, but they have the power to launch them unilaterally.

A nuclear first strike in times of peace violates international law so yes; it is illegal.
☠ JOIN ETHARIA. I'M NO LONGER ASKING ☠
Almost exclusively on discord these days. Everything here is outdated.
Welcome to Kanadorika; a collection of 10 distinct nations united into an Empire that somehow manages to be both far right and far left.
Treko wrote:"You look Kanadorikan! The women are usually tall with big breasts! you fit that description."

User avatar
Conservative Republic Of Huang
Minister
 
Posts: 2567
Founded: Jul 09, 2015
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Conservative Republic Of Huang » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:12 am

Punished UMN wrote:
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:I think this is a semantic issue here. Unilateral in the sense that they have the necessary and sufficient power to order one, but not so in the sense that there aren't other components of the government and military involved as well.

The War Powers Act essentially did away with that. Obama didn't need congressional approval to go to war with Libya, for example.

As in, the President can't literally go to a nuclear silo and turn the key. And for a war, although they have little power to stop it, the apparatus of the government must still execute the orders of the President. The President doesn't personally drone strike Libya, after all. The original point being the Gen. Milley was correct in asserting that nuclear strike commands had to pass through him from the President.
Pro: Direct democracy, e-democracy, parliamentary sovereignty, state secularism, non-violent direct action (striking), police reform, syndicalism, democratic workplace management
Anti: Most types of representative democracy, ultra-nationalism, imperialism, autocratic workplace management, the state

"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say syndicalism now, syndicalism tomorrow, syndicalism forever."
not conservative or a republic
Transparency

User avatar
Immortan Khan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1308
Founded: Mar 17, 2021
Corporate Police State

Postby Immortan Khan » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:17 am

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:
Punished UMN wrote:The War Powers Act essentially did away with that. Obama didn't need congressional approval to go to war with Libya, for example.

As in, the President can't literally go to a nuclear silo and turn the key. And for a war, although they have little power to stop it, the apparatus of the government must still execute the orders of the President. The President doesn't personally drone strike Libya, after all. The original point being the Gen. Milley was correct in asserting that nuclear strike commands had to pass through him from the President.

The chain of command is to prevent unauthorized actions ordered by lower tier officers and officials below that of the Commander in Chief. If the President was personally at FEW and ordered its commander to launch an attack, said commander wouldn't have to go through the rest of the chain because the order is coming from the top directly.
Orthodoxy and Monarchy

Do not Free NSG Rojava!!! Free Biafra. Free Eastern Christendom.

User avatar
Kanadorika
Minister
 
Posts: 2573
Founded: May 04, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kanadorika » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:19 am

Punished UMN wrote:
Kanadorika wrote:The oath every single servicemember takes upon joining the military makes it pretty clear that allegiance lies in the Constitution, not the President. The President is commander in chief, but only so far as he is not blatantly disregarding constitutional process.

Don't forget Lieutenant Calley was still convicted for murder and court martialed even though he testified he was following orders given to him by his superior to massacre Vietnamese.

Committing warcrimes because a superior told you to still makes you a war criminal.

Yeah, and more American servicemen have been convicted for disobeying orders that were illegal than have been convicted of war crimes they were ordered to do. You're missing the point either way: the military isn't the institution that decides if an order is constitutional or not. They're not supposed to decide on the exception, that's the job of the courts.

So are you suggesting that the military follow orders and pull the trigger and wait for the courts to decide later?

Because that is precisely how warcrimes happen. It is up to the individual to decide on whether an order is legal. That's why Lieutenant Calley was convicted; because he knew massacring Vietnamese civilians was illegal and yet carried out those orders.

Its definetly preferable to have somebody be court martialed for disobeying orders than having them follow those orders, commit an illegal act of violence, and then face the same court only with dozens of innocents dead behind them.
Last edited by Kanadorika on Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
☠ JOIN ETHARIA. I'M NO LONGER ASKING ☠
Almost exclusively on discord these days. Everything here is outdated.
Welcome to Kanadorika; a collection of 10 distinct nations united into an Empire that somehow manages to be both far right and far left.
Treko wrote:"You look Kanadorikan! The women are usually tall with big breasts! you fit that description."

User avatar
Kilobugya
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6455
Founded: Apr 05, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Kilobugya » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:19 am

Kanadorika wrote:Committing warcrimes because a superior told you to still makes you a war criminal.


Yep, that's established clearly in international law since 1945.

And it's also included in modern, progressist Constitutions, like the one of Ecuador « La obediencia a las órdenes superiores no eximirá de responsabilidad a quienes las ejecuten. » (« Obeying to orders from a superior do not exempt from responsibility those who would follow them. » or the one of Venezuela « Todo acto dictado en ejercicio del Poder Público que viole o menoscabe los derechos garantizados por esta Constitución y la ley es nulo, y los funcionarios públicos y funcionarias públicas que lo ordenen o ejecuten incurren en responsabilidad penal, civil y administrativa, según los casos, sin que les sirvan de excusa órdenes superiores. » (« Any act performed as part of state authority that violates or doesn't recognize the rights guaranteed by this Constitution and the law are void, and the public servants who order or execute them engage their penal, civil or administrative responsibility, depending of the case, without the orders from a superior being acceptable excuses. »).

Every Constitution should have such "duty to disobey orders that violates fundamental rights", and refusing to commit atrocities (like starting a nuclear war) should not only be a right and also a duty.
Secular humanist and trans-humanist, rationalist, democratic socialist, pacifist, dreaming very high to not perform too low.
Economic Left/Right: -9.50 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

User avatar
Kilobugya
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6455
Founded: Apr 05, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Kilobugya » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:23 am

Immortan Khan wrote:The chain of command is to prevent unauthorized actions ordered by lower tier officers and officials below that of the Commander in Chief. If the President was personally at FEW and ordered its commander to launch an attack, said commander wouldn't have to go through the rest of the chain because the order is coming from the top directly.


No. The authority of the President stems from the Constitution, and is limited by the Constitution, established laws and signed international treaties. When the President, commander-in-chief or not, gives an order which is clearly abusive, no one should obey to it. And a nuclear first strike without provocation is clearly in violation of many international treaties (and of the Constitution which gives to Congress, not the President, the power to start a war).
Secular humanist and trans-humanist, rationalist, democratic socialist, pacifist, dreaming very high to not perform too low.
Economic Left/Right: -9.50 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

User avatar
Conservative Republic Of Huang
Minister
 
Posts: 2567
Founded: Jul 09, 2015
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Conservative Republic Of Huang » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:23 am

Immortan Khan wrote:
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:As in, the President can't literally go to a nuclear silo and turn the key. And for a war, although they have little power to stop it, the apparatus of the government must still execute the orders of the President. The President doesn't personally drone strike Libya, after all. The original point being the Gen. Milley was correct in asserting that nuclear strike commands had to pass through him from the President.

The chain of command is to prevent unauthorized actions ordered by lower tier officers and officials below that of the Commander in Chief. If the President was personally at FEW and ordered its commander to launch an attack, said commander wouldn't have to go through the rest of the chain because the order is coming from the top directly.

At this point, this has gotten too hypothetical for me to find a clear answer. The point I was trying to make in the beginning is that Gen. Milley was asserting something that is correct according to general procedure. Perhaps it is wrong, or perhaps it is not, in the narrow hypothetical that the President is personally present at a nuclear silo, but I won't hold that against him.
Pro: Direct democracy, e-democracy, parliamentary sovereignty, state secularism, non-violent direct action (striking), police reform, syndicalism, democratic workplace management
Anti: Most types of representative democracy, ultra-nationalism, imperialism, autocratic workplace management, the state

"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say syndicalism now, syndicalism tomorrow, syndicalism forever."
not conservative or a republic
Transparency

User avatar
Washington Resistance Army
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50015
Founded: Aug 08, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Washington Resistance Army » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:25 am

Kilobugya wrote:
Immortan Khan wrote:The chain of command is to prevent unauthorized actions ordered by lower tier officers and officials below that of the Commander in Chief. If the President was personally at FEW and ordered its commander to launch an attack, said commander wouldn't have to go through the rest of the chain because the order is coming from the top directly.


No. The authority of the President stems from the Constitution, and is limited by the Constitution, established laws and signed international treaties. When the President, commander-in-chief or not, gives an order which is clearly abusive, no one should obey to it. And a nuclear first strike without provocation is clearly in violation of many international treaties (and of the Constitution which gives to Congress, not the President, the power to start a war).


iirc American jurisprudence is really clear that international treaties mean nothing in this regard, the only thing that matters is the constitution.
Greco-Roman Pagan, Environmentalist, Agrarian, Revolutionary, Gun Manufacturer, State Socialist

User avatar
Immortan Khan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1308
Founded: Mar 17, 2021
Corporate Police State

Postby Immortan Khan » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:28 am

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:
Immortan Khan wrote:The chain of command is to prevent unauthorized actions ordered by lower tier officers and officials below that of the Commander in Chief. If the President was personally at FEW and ordered its commander to launch an attack, said commander wouldn't have to go through the rest of the chain because the order is coming from the top directly.

At this point, this has gotten too hypothetical for me to find a clear answer. The point I was trying to make in the beginning is that Gen. Milley was asserting something that is correct according to general procedure. Perhaps it is wrong, or perhaps it is not, in the narrow hypothetical that the President is personally present at a nuclear silo, but I won't hold that against him.

I was using it as an example because it would work the same way if Trump personally called them directly or the President otherwise sought to bypass Milley. Milley told them to ignore orders unless he was part of it ie he signed off on it.
Orthodoxy and Monarchy

Do not Free NSG Rojava!!! Free Biafra. Free Eastern Christendom.

User avatar
Conservative Republic Of Huang
Minister
 
Posts: 2567
Founded: Jul 09, 2015
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Conservative Republic Of Huang » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:29 am

Immortan Khan wrote:
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:At this point, this has gotten too hypothetical for me to find a clear answer. The point I was trying to make in the beginning is that Gen. Milley was asserting something that is correct according to general procedure. Perhaps it is wrong, or perhaps it is not, in the narrow hypothetical that the President is personally present at a nuclear silo, but I won't hold that against him.

I was using it as an example because it would work the same way if Trump personally called them directly or the President otherwise sought to bypass Milley. Milley told them to ignore orders unless he was part of it ie he signed off on it.

Well then, even if just to identify the President with their codes, the top military brass have to be involved.
Pro: Direct democracy, e-democracy, parliamentary sovereignty, state secularism, non-violent direct action (striking), police reform, syndicalism, democratic workplace management
Anti: Most types of representative democracy, ultra-nationalism, imperialism, autocratic workplace management, the state

"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say syndicalism now, syndicalism tomorrow, syndicalism forever."
not conservative or a republic
Transparency

User avatar
The Black Forrest
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46659
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:30 am

Immortan Khan wrote:
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:As in, the President can't literally go to a nuclear silo and turn the key. And for a war, although they have little power to stop it, the apparatus of the government must still execute the orders of the President. The President doesn't personally drone strike Libya, after all. The original point being the Gen. Milley was correct in asserting that nuclear strike commands had to pass through him from the President.

The chain of command is to prevent unauthorized actions ordered by lower tier officers and officials below that of the Commander in Chief. If the President was personally at FEW and ordered its commander to launch an attack, said commander wouldn't have to go through the rest of the chain because the order is coming from the top directly.


The commander can advise the President if that is a good idea or not. He can refuse it as an unlawful order. The President of course can fire him and yet be challenged by the replacement. They are not robots..
*I am a master proofreader after I click Submit.
* There is actually a War on Christmas. But Christmas started it, with it's unparalleled aggression against the Thanksgiving Holiday, and now Christmas has seized much Lebensraum in November, and are pushing into October. The rest of us seek to repel these invaders, and push them back to the status quo ante bellum Black Friday border. -Trotskylvania
* Silence Is Golden But Duct Tape Is Silver.
* I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days. - Max Barry talking about Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
Kilobugya
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6455
Founded: Apr 05, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Kilobugya » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:31 am

Washington Resistance Army wrote:iirc American jurisprudence is really clear that international treaties mean nothing in this regard, the only thing that matters is the constitution.


The standard hierarchy of norms of "rule of law" is 1. Constitution 2. International treaties 3. Laws 4. Executive branch orders. I know USA is a very atypical country with an imperialist mentality making them disregard other countries and treaties, but that doesn't mean it's right to do so. The authority of the President should yield to those 3 higher level of norms.
Secular humanist and trans-humanist, rationalist, democratic socialist, pacifist, dreaming very high to not perform too low.
Economic Left/Right: -9.50 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

User avatar
Immortan Khan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1308
Founded: Mar 17, 2021
Corporate Police State

Postby Immortan Khan » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:32 am

Kilobugya wrote:
Immortan Khan wrote:The chain of command is to prevent unauthorized actions ordered by lower tier officers and officials below that of the Commander in Chief. If the President was personally at FEW and ordered its commander to launch an attack, said commander wouldn't have to go through the rest of the chain because the order is coming from the top directly.


No. The authority of the President stems from the Constitution, and is limited by the Constitution, established laws
Yes and the President has plenary authority over the military and the power to unilateral order a nuclear strike.
and signed international treaties.
Only if they don't conflict with the Constitution iirc it goes Constitution>International treaties.
When the President, commander-in-chief or not, gives an order which is clearly abusive, no one should obey to it.
Which is limited in scope in terms of what would be considered an illegal order.
And a nuclear first strike without provocation is clearly in violation of many international treaties (and of the Constitution which gives to Congress, not the President, the power to start a war).
Congress gave up its sole authority to start wars quite awhile ago.
Orthodoxy and Monarchy

Do not Free NSG Rojava!!! Free Biafra. Free Eastern Christendom.

User avatar
Antipatros
Diplomat
 
Posts: 546
Founded: Aug 26, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Antipatros » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:36 am

The silver lining here is that we are really lucky that our system withstood the pressure that was mounted against it. It strained, but it held. Things could have easily gotten much, much worse. The police officers that stood their ground and fought back even while vastly outnumbered deserve a lot of credit.
Last edited by Antipatros on Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Black Forrest
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46659
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:37 am

Antipatros wrote:The silver lining here is that we were real lucky that our system withstood the pressure that was mounted against it. It strained, but it held. Things could have easily gotten much, much worse. The police officers that stood their ground and fought back even while vastly outnumbered deserve a lot of credit.


Indeed. If the “patriots” show up again, they are going to find more people facing them.
*I am a master proofreader after I click Submit.
* There is actually a War on Christmas. But Christmas started it, with it's unparalleled aggression against the Thanksgiving Holiday, and now Christmas has seized much Lebensraum in November, and are pushing into October. The rest of us seek to repel these invaders, and push them back to the status quo ante bellum Black Friday border. -Trotskylvania
* Silence Is Golden But Duct Tape Is Silver.
* I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days. - Max Barry talking about Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
Kilobugya
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6455
Founded: Apr 05, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Kilobugya » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:38 am

Immortan Khan wrote:Yes and the President has plenary authority over the military and the power to unilateral order a nuclear strike.


Since nuclear weapons didn't exist when the Constitution was written, it doesn't clearly state "the President has the power to unilaterally order a nuclear strike". It basically just says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", which is not clear at all into exactly what he can or can't order them to do.

Immortan Khan wrote:Only if they don't conflict with the Constitution iirc it goes Constitution>International treaties.


Yes, Constitution primes over treaties. But when the Constitution doesn't explicitly say what's allowed or not, then treaties (and laws) apply. Which is definitely the case here.

Immortan Khan wrote:Congress gave up its sole authority to start wars quite awhile ago.


That's not what the Constitution says.
Secular humanist and trans-humanist, rationalist, democratic socialist, pacifist, dreaming very high to not perform too low.
Economic Left/Right: -9.50 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

User avatar
Diahon
Senator
 
Posts: 3538
Founded: Apr 01, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Diahon » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:51 am

Immortan Khan wrote:
Bombadil wrote:he didn’t overthrow the president

If he no longer has de facto control over the military, especially its most destructive assets, and further has officials conducting private foreign relations that could undermine his own stance, then yes he was effectively overthrown even if the pageantry wasn't there. Which is the point of a soft coup, to quietly neutralize political power extrajudicially without the fanfare that comes with a standard coup.

if that's to corral or neutralize an abysmal mass murderer, then fuck it, i'm all for coups

or would be, as this soft shit didn't even ban trump from running again

User avatar
Picairn
Senator
 
Posts: 4680
Founded: Feb 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Picairn » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:59 am

Immortan Khan wrote:Congress gave up its sole authority to start wars quite awhile ago.

Specific authorizations for particular wars does not imply that Congress has fully given up its war powers to the President. It can take that power back by repealing the 2001 AUMF and strengthening the War Powers Act.
Picairn's Ministry of Foreign Relations
Minister: Edward H. Cornell
WA Ambassador: John M. Terry (Active)
Factbook | Constitution | Newspaper
Albrenia wrote:With great power comes great mockability.

Proctopeo wrote:I'm completely right and you know it.

Moralityland wrote:big corporations allied with the communist elite
Center-left liberal, passionate political observer, and naval warfare enthusiast.
Listen here Jack, we're going to destroy malarkey.
♔ The Empire of Picairn ♔
-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-—————————-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-
✵ Certified brunch-loving liberal and resident optimist of NSG. I'm male. All Hail Biden!

User avatar
Immortan Khan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1308
Founded: Mar 17, 2021
Corporate Police State

Postby Immortan Khan » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:04 am

Kilobugya wrote:Since nuclear weapons didn't exist when the Constitution was written, it doesn't clearly state "the President has the power to unilaterally order a nuclear strike". It basically just says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", which is not clear at all into exactly what he can or can't order them to do.
Federalist No. 69 explains the authority of the CiC and POTUS has retained that plenary power since the beginning. Nuclear strikes are perfectly within their authority.
That's not what the Constitution says.

It's a case of what is de facto instead of what is de jure.
Last edited by Immortan Khan on Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Orthodoxy and Monarchy

Do not Free NSG Rojava!!! Free Biafra. Free Eastern Christendom.

User avatar
Immortan Khan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1308
Founded: Mar 17, 2021
Corporate Police State

Postby Immortan Khan » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:08 am

Picairn wrote:
Immortan Khan wrote:Congress gave up its sole authority to start wars quite awhile ago.

Specific authorizations for particular wars does not imply that Congress has fully given up its war powers to the President. It can take that power back by repealing the 2001 AUMF and strengthening the War Powers Act.

The Executive branch has flagrantly violated the War Powers Act on numerous occasions, regardless of political affiliation with no legal actions taken against it. It's treated as nothing more than a piece of paper.
Orthodoxy and Monarchy

Do not Free NSG Rojava!!! Free Biafra. Free Eastern Christendom.

User avatar
Page
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14908
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Page » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:12 am

Immortan Khan wrote:
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:No they can't.

Oh yes they can. If POTUS wanted to, they could personally lead the army into battle and that's what Washington did during the Whiskey Rebellion.

POTUS has unilateral power to order nuclear strikes. It's not illegal for them to order them. The basis might be batshit insane, but they have the power to launch them unilaterally.


POTUS should personally lead the army into battle. Not even kidding or exaggerating. For most of human history, rulers were atop a horse with their army. If we brought that back, rulers wouldn't start wars so casually.
I am an internationalist geolibertarian anarcho-futurist with syncretic egoist and Marxist tendencies, dismissive of the reform vs. revolution dichotomy in favor of a holistic utilitarian approach, and sympathetic towards illegalism within the confines of a left-wing non-aggression principle that acknowledges inalienable positive liberties.

I don't believe in kink-shaming unless your kink is submitting to the state.

Pro-vaccine, pro-mask, anti-lockdown. Wash your hands but also rise up when your country becomes a prison.

Protect yourself from Covid-19: Stop licking boots.

User avatar
Kilobugya
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6455
Founded: Apr 05, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Kilobugya » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:20 am

Immortan Khan wrote:Federalist No. 69 explains the authority of the CiC and POTUS has retained that plenary power since the beginning.


Federalist papers are essays by one of the framers. They are not the Constitution.

Immortan Khan wrote:Nuclear strikes are perfectly within their authority.


Definitely not when at peace, since it would be starting a war. And it would also be violating international treaties, which are binding when not explicitly contradicted by the Constitution, which they are not on this case.

Immortan Khan wrote:
That's not what the Constitution says.

It's a case of what is de facto instead of what is de jure.


Weren't we speaking of rule of law ?
Secular humanist and trans-humanist, rationalist, democratic socialist, pacifist, dreaming very high to not perform too low.
Economic Left/Right: -9.50 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

User avatar
Picairn
Senator
 
Posts: 4680
Founded: Feb 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Picairn » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:21 am

Immortan Khan wrote:The Executive branch has flagrantly violated the War Powers Act on numerous occasions, regardless of political affiliation with no legal actions taken against it. It's treated as nothing more than a piece of paper.

Because the executive branch ignored or tried to work around the Act, Congress shouldn't do anything to take its power back?

Weird reasoning, but okay.
Picairn's Ministry of Foreign Relations
Minister: Edward H. Cornell
WA Ambassador: John M. Terry (Active)
Factbook | Constitution | Newspaper
Albrenia wrote:With great power comes great mockability.

Proctopeo wrote:I'm completely right and you know it.

Moralityland wrote:big corporations allied with the communist elite
Center-left liberal, passionate political observer, and naval warfare enthusiast.
Listen here Jack, we're going to destroy malarkey.
♔ The Empire of Picairn ♔
-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-—————————-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-
✵ Certified brunch-loving liberal and resident optimist of NSG. I'm male. All Hail Biden!

User avatar
Kilobugya
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6455
Founded: Apr 05, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Kilobugya » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:21 am

Page wrote:POTUS should personally lead the army into battle. Not even kidding or exaggerating. For most of human history, rulers were atop a horse with their army. If we brought that back, rulers wouldn't start wars so casually.


I understand and agree with the general idea, but that's hard to implement when wars are mostly waged through ICBM, drone strikes and stealth bombers. Although it would be fun to watch Trump attempt to pilot a B-17.
Secular humanist and trans-humanist, rationalist, democratic socialist, pacifist, dreaming very high to not perform too low.
Economic Left/Right: -9.50 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

User avatar
Picairn
Senator
 
Posts: 4680
Founded: Feb 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Picairn » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:28 am

Immortan Khan wrote:Federalist No. 69 explains the authority of the CiC and POTUS has retained that plenary power since the beginning. Nuclear strikes are perfectly within their authority.

Where in Federalist No. 69 implies that the President can authorize direct military action against a sovereign state without the consent of Congress?

It's a case of what is de facto instead of what is de jure.

So we just infer whatever we want from the texts? I'm getting Dred Scott v. Sandford vibe here.
Picairn's Ministry of Foreign Relations
Minister: Edward H. Cornell
WA Ambassador: John M. Terry (Active)
Factbook | Constitution | Newspaper
Albrenia wrote:With great power comes great mockability.

Proctopeo wrote:I'm completely right and you know it.

Moralityland wrote:big corporations allied with the communist elite
Center-left liberal, passionate political observer, and naval warfare enthusiast.
Listen here Jack, we're going to destroy malarkey.
♔ The Empire of Picairn ♔
-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-—————————-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-
✵ Certified brunch-loving liberal and resident optimist of NSG. I'm male. All Hail Biden!

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aanchean, Barlyy, Esalia, Forensic Reality, Genivaria, Great Tarsia, Heloin, Hurdergaryp, Imperial Rifta, Kilobugya, Kohr, Kowani, Lillorainen, Loeje, Majestic-12 [Bot], Michel Meilleur, Neanderthaland, Necroghastia, Ors Might, Page, San Lumen, Sandwichs, Sundiata, The Huskar Social Union, The Nihilistic view, Window Land

Advertisement

Remove ads