For forum member who have no idea what fascism means:

[martin]

It would be in the CIC portion which is cited in the War Powers Resolution. Read the things, the Constitution isn't so long that you shouldn't have most of it memorized by now, the Resolution is available for you to read as well. It is why I referenced them, so your stupid questions could be resolved with minimal research involved.

Sorry, absent a declaration of war by Congress neither grants legal effect for the action under discussion.

 

[Damocles]

Sorry, absent a declaration of war by Congress neither grants legal effect for the action under discussion. Any stupidity in this exchange isn't at my end.

You are incorrect and must be maintaining a purposeful ignorance to maintain what you want to believe.

Presidents are allowed limited action without approval if they report it within 48 hours to Congress and give the scope of the action and the end point. This would fall well within the "withdraw troops within 60 days" limitation as a limited action.

 

[martin]

You are incorrect and must be maintaining a purposeful ignorance to maintain what you want to believe.

Presidents are allowed limited action without approval if they report it within 48 hours to Congress and give the scope of the action and the end point. This would fall well within the "withdraw troops within 60 days" limitation as a limited action.

Seems we are down to just The War Powers Act. That act provides for responding to an attack on the United States by dispatching troops, not engaging in nuclear warfare.

 

[Damocles]

Seems we are down to just The War Powers Act. That act provides for responding to an attack on the United States by dispatching troops, not engaging in nuclear warfare.

Seems you didn't pay attention to the fact that the War Powers Resolution refers to the constitutional authority of the CIC. The act provides for limited actions, which bombing, not with nuclear weapons, one facility would certainly be within that definition. Again, this authority is not new and has been used in the past, I gave one example. But we can talk about Bush in Yugoslavia as another.

 

[martin]

Seems you didn't pay attention to the fact that the War Powers Resolution refers to the constitutional authority of the CIC. The act provides for limited actions, which bombing, not with nuclear weapons, one facility would certainly be within that definition. Again, this authority is not new and has been used in the past, I gave one example. But we can talk about Bush in Yugoslavia as another.

Trump and Congress will do whatever they do but it's bunk to argue that an attack on Iran may be lawfully ordered unilaterally by the President pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. That resolution is meant to deter a President from acting without Congress.

 

[Damocles]

Trump and Congress will do whatever they do but it's bunk to argue that an attack on Iran may be lawfully ordered unilaterally by the President pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. That resolution is meant to deter a President from acting without Congress.

Yet it allows for limited actions. Hence my statement, and the reality, that many presidents have used this particular authority.

 

[martin]

Yet it allows for limited actions. Hence my statement, and the reality, that many presidents have used this particular authority.

A case of “give them an inch and they take a mile.”

 

[Walt]

We don't need to occupy iran to bomb the shit out of it.

So we would "bomb the shit out of" Iran, if they surrendered? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose to getting them to surrender?

The reality is we do not want a country of a 100 million people with no working government that we bombed heavily. They will come after us one way or another. We want to figure out a way to make Iran work.

 

[Hume]

It is possible. They seem not to want to and to want to at the same time. If we do, it should be limited to the bunker busters.

Israel is a rogue state, a terrorist nation.