American Politics VII: Virginia Reel

[Kanadorika]

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.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

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.

[Immortan Khan]

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.

[Kanadorika]

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.

[Kilobugya]

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.

[Kilobugya]

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).

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

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.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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.

[Immortan Khan]

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.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

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.

[The Black Forrest]

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..

[Kilobugya]

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.

[Immortan Khan]

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.

[Antipatros]

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.

[The Black Forrest]

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.

[Kilobugya]

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.

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.

Congress gave up its sole authority to start wars quite awhile ago.

That's not what the Constitution says.

[Diahon]

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

[Picairn]

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.

[Immortan Khan]

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.

[Immortan Khan]

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.

[Page]

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.

[Kilobugya]

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.

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.

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 ?

[Picairn]

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.

[Kilobugya]

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.

[Picairn]

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.