Quote from: mrclose on April 07, 2017, 06:05:08 PM
Can you imagine what it would be like for the president to get permission from Congress before acting if action was required immediately?

Cruz stated that Trump did act within his authority.  He was simply stating that Trump now needs to consult Congress for further action.

The one thing I like about this is Trump ordered the strike and made a public statement while meeting with the president of China. Pretty baddass.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on April 07, 2017, 07:26:56 PM
The one thing I like about this is Trump ordered the strike and made a public statement while meeting with the president of China. Pretty baddass.

Multitasking president? 

Quote from: zewazir on April 07, 2017, 08:29:06 PM
Multitasking president? 

So he can play golf and work at the same time.  Unlike b o.   

Please tell me Hussein was on vacation in Syria...

Quote from: taxed on April 07, 2017, 11:09:05 PM
Please tell me Hussein was on vacation in Syria...

Oh, bosh and nonsense. You'd settle for Camp X-ray at Gitmo and you damn well know it! 

Quote from: quiller on April 07, 2017, 11:11:49 PM
Oh, bosh and nonsense. You'd settle for Camp X-ray at Gitmo and you damn well know it! 

As long as they take away his prayer rug...

Quote from: taxed on April 07, 2017, 11:21:48 PM
As long as they take away his prayer rug...

Well, if nothing else this entire episode has shown us one thing.

Buy Ratheon stock. They make Tomahawk missiles.

Donald Trump owns stock in Ratheon, maker of the Tomahawk missile which has led to a jump in stock prices after the Syrian attack.

This source wants Trump impeached. It offers multiple links, all to leftists. (Go figure.)

https://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/tomahawk-missiles-were-wrong-choice-for-syria-attack-but-donald-trump-owns-stock-in-the-company/2224/

Quote from: zewazir on April 07, 2017, 06:42:37 PM
The Constitution clearly states that the President is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Nothing precedent abut that. It also states that Congress shall have the authority to declare war. Nothing "precedent" about that, either.

Where did I suggest otherwise?

QuoteNor is there any "precedent" about the defined FACT that declaring war is a political action, while making war is a military action.

War, in almost all cases is failed politics.

QuoteTwo distinct types of action which were delegated to two different branches of government. IF they meant the two actions to be co-dependent, I am certain they would have stated so.

Of note, there is NOTHING in the Constitution which gives Congress the power to "authorize" military action. NOT ONE WORD. They can declare war as one of their powers AND NOTHING ELSE. Therefore, assuming that Congress needs to be involved with the decision to use military force is nothing less than declaring a power because people think it SHOULD be there, not because it IS there.

Did you miss the part about Congress controlling the money to support war?
The President is afforded the power of military action, but beyond protecting American interests, he needs explicit approval of Congress where funding is concerned. Congress making a Declaration of war essentially relieves Congress control of the purse to the President.
See why the distinct demarcation between powers?
Though the last 3 plus decades blurred those lines via CR's.

Quote
From the start, even those who were involved in writing the Constitution, who later went on to become presidents used military action where it was deemed necessary WITHOUT declaration of war. The War of 1812 was our first actual declared war, yet our military had sen action dozens of times in dozens of different conflicts. In fact, we have had exactly 5 DECLARED wars in our history. Compare that to the number of times we have been in armed conflict of one type or another. There is a huge difference between "precedent" and the reality of defending the country as necessary without making a huge production of making every military action a declared war.

As I stated, precedent is not law and Congress shirked their duties in enforcing the rule of law. Libya being the most recent.

QuoteWith the way the Korean War and Vietnam were mismanaged as Cold War political statements does prove, IMO, that there SHOULD be more checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government when it comes to conducting war and/or military actions on foreign soils. However, that verbiage is NOT in the Constitution at this time.

Because Congress doesn't want such a responsibility placed on their shoulders.
Anyway, I can't see any other reason beyond a bunch of spineless bastards. Or, one other possibility could be, declaring war places all control in the President's hands.
But I kind of doubt that one, because Congress has proven to be nothing more than a tool of special interest.
This is definitely a question for Cruz. Care to broach the question to him and see if he responds?

Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 10:58:48 AM
Where did I suggest otherwise?
 
War, in almost all cases is failed politics.
Did you miss the part about Congress controlling the money to support war?
The President is afforded the power of military action, but beyond protecting American interests, he needs explicit approval of Congress where funding is concerned. Congress making a Declaration of war essentially relieves Congress control of the purse to the President.
See why the distinct demarcation between powers?
Though the last 3 plus decades blurred those lines via CR's.
As I stated, precedent is not law and Congress shirked their duties in enforcing the rule of law. Libya being the most recent.

Because Congress doesn't want such a responsibility placed on their shoulders.
Anyway, I can't see any other reason beyond a bunch of spineless bastards. Or, one other possibility could be, declaring war places all control in the President's hands.
But I kind of doubt that one, because Congress has proven to be nothing more than a tool of special interest.
This is definitely a question for Cruz. Care to broach the question to him and see if he responds?

The president has the responsibility to protect our country and our citizens, including military action. As you stated, congress has abdicated their responsibility concerning war - on purpose.

How about this example: Congress is on a two week recess. Trump desires to blast Assad's ass. So what does he do? Tell Assad I am going to blast your ass in a couples of weeks when congress gets back. Absurd isn't it?

Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 10:58:48 AM
Where did I suggest otherwise?
 
War, in almost all cases is failed politics.
Did you miss the part about Congress controlling the money to support war?
The President is afforded the power of military action, but beyond protecting American interests, he needs explicit approval of Congress where funding is concerned. Congress making a Declaration of war essentially relieves Congress control of the purse to the President.
See why the distinct demarcation between powers?
Though the last 3 plus decades blurred those lines via CR's.
As I stated, precedent is not law and Congress shirked their duties in enforcing the rule of law. Libya being the most recent.

Because Congress doesn't want such a responsibility placed on their shoulders.
Anyway, I can't see any other reason beyond a bunch of spineless bastards. Or, one other possibility could be, declaring war places all control in the President's hands.
But I kind of doubt that one, because Congress has proven to be nothing more than a tool of special interest.
This is definitely a question for Cruz. Care to broach the question to him and see if he responds?

WHAT PRECEDENT?  The FACT that it was argued way back at the beginning of the Civil War the difference between declaring war and using military action against a perceived threat. That is not precedent, it is reading the Constitution AS WRITTEN and applying it. The LAW is that the president is the Commander in Chief of our military forces. The LAW is that Congress has the authority to declare war. The LAW is that those are two separate authorities - one does NOT control the other.

The REALITY is that use of military force to protect national security does not always fall under the heading of war. Therefore Congress has no authority over the president nor the military under those circumstances where military action takes place outside of war.

The military is already funded. As you well know, it is mandated in the Constitution that every two years congress has to write a bill declaring the amount of military spending that will take place over the following two years.  For instance, the missiles used against that Syrian airfield were already purchased and paid for, or they would not have been in the holds of the destroyers that launched them.

But, again, nowhere in that mandate requiring funding of a standing military be a bi-annual event gives congress authority to tell the president how, or IF military force may be used. Congress could certainly refuse to fund the military, as that is their authority. But they can NOT refuse to fund any one particular action of the military as ordered by the president. That is not what the Constitution says, or in any way implies. Congress can approve X number of dollars for the support of a standing federal military force, and NOTHING MORE, because nothing more was written into the Constitution. Once those dollars are approved, it falls to the executive branch how they are spent, and how the assets purchased with those dollars are used.

If you can show me otherwise in the Constitution, I would be more than willing to learn.  But what I have read, all I have seen is the fact that Article I, Sec. 8 states Congress has the authority to declare war (para 11) and the authority to raise and support armies with the added caveat that funding must be approved every two years (para 12) and provide and maintain a navy (para 13). I also see Article II, Sec 2, Para 1 that the president is granted the authority as commander in chief of the military, including the state militias should they be called to national service. Nothing in there I can find which gives congress any type of authority over the President with respect to if or where military forces may be deployed, or under what circumstances. That is the LAW.

Maybe it needs to be changed, as I personally believe that is way too much authority for one person considering ours is the single most powerful military force in the history of mankind. But my beliefs do not change the way the law is currently written.

Quote from: zewazir on April 08, 2017, 12:32:30 PM
WHAT PRECEDENT?  The FACT that it was argued way back at the beginning of the Civil War the difference between declaring war and using military action against a perceived threat. That is not precedent, it is reading the Constitution AS WRITTEN and applying it. The LAW is that the president is the Commander in Chief of our military forces. The LAW is that Congress has the authority to declare war. The LAW is that those are two separate authorities - one does NOT control the other.

Oh Jeez, don't drag this into a Civil war thread, it'll never end. So I won't even comment because that wound will never heal.

QuoteThe REALITY is that use of military force to protect national security does not always fall under the heading of war. Therefore Congress has no authority over the president nor the military under those circumstances where military action takes place outside of war.

Again, I didn't say otherwise.

QuoteThe military is already funded. As you well know, it is mandated in the Constitution that every two years congress has to write a bill declaring the amount of military spending that will take place over the following two years.  For instance, the missiles used against that Syrian airfield were already purchased and paid for, or they would not have been in the holds of the destroyers that launched them.

Why are you assuming I was against the strike?

QuoteBut, again, nowhere in that mandate requiring funding of a standing military be a bi-annual event gives congress authority to tell the president how, or IF military force may be used. Congress could certainly refuse to fund the military, as that is their authority. But they can NOT refuse to fund any one particular action of the military as ordered by the president. That is not what the Constitution says, or in any way implies. Congress can approve X number of dollars for the support of a standing federal military force, and NOTHING MORE, because nothing more was written into the Constitution. Once those dollars are approved, it falls to the executive branch how they are spent, and how the assets purchased with those dollars are used.

Funding or not, POTUS was charged as CnC for a reason, though that does not give him full reign in striking all out war, as listed in article of Impeachment, so you see, POTUS does not have the power of continued military action.
This is why Cruz rightly suggested Trump meet with Congress if he plans further action because Congress most assuredly does have say in the matter as per the Constitution.

QuoteIf you can show me otherwise in the Constitution, I would be more than willing to learn.  But what I have read, all I have seen is the fact that Article I, Sec. 8 states Congress has the authority to declare war (para 11) and the authority to raise and support armies with the added caveat that funding must be approved every two years (para 12) and provide and maintain a navy (para 13). I also see Article II, Sec 2, Para 1 that the president is granted the authority as commander in chief of the military, including the state militias should they be called to national service. Nothing in there I can find which gives congress any type of authority over the President with respect to if or where military forces may be deployed, or under what circumstances. That is the LAW.

As stated above, Congress has the power to Impeach, meaning the POTUS is not afforded dictatorial powers.

QuoteMaybe it needs to be changed, as I personally believe that is way too much authority for one person considering ours is the single most powerful military force in the history of mankind. But my beliefs do not change the way the law is currently written.

If Congress exercises its power as guaranteed in the Constitution, then there is no need for further instruction.

Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 01:28:26 PM
Oh Jeez, don't drag this into a Civil war thread, it'll never end. So I won't even comment because that wound will never heal.

The Civil War reference was to point out the first time there was a significant challenge questioning the president's authority as CinC, and the response to that challenge. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the Civil War.

Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 01:28:26 PM
Again, I didn't say otherwise.

Yet you still imply authorities granted congress with respect to the use of military force.

Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 01:28:26 PM
Why are you assuming I was against the strike?

Good grief. I didn't say, imply or otherwise hint you are against the strike. The POINT is the military is already funded. The idea that congress can use purse strings to deny the president authority to use military force in any specific instance is mistaken.

Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 01:28:26 PM
Funding or not, POTUS was charged as CnC for a reason, though that does not give him full reign in striking all out war, as listed in article of Impeachment, so you see, POTUS does not have the power of continued military action.

Impeachment? Seriously? Quote the part of the Constitution that says congress can impeach a president if they disagree with the way he deploys the military. According to my recollection, the president may be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, admittedly, gross misuse of the military against foreign countries, or especially domestically which is expressly forbidden by law, could properly be defined as a high crime. Then again, what line has to be crossed when it comes to the difference between defending national security, and misuse? I would submit Trump could order a dozen more missile strikes without asking permission from congress, and would not even come close to crossing that line. OTOH, sending in ground troops with the specific end goal of removing Assad from power and instituting a replacement form of government is, IMO, a full-on act of war against a foreign government, and damned well should be declared as so being.

Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 01:28:26 PM
This is why Cruz rightly suggested Trump meet with Congress if he plans further action because Congress most assuredly does have say in the matter as per the Constitution.

Show me where. Quote that part of the Constitution which says so. And no, it is not the power to declare war, as not all military actions involve being in a state of war. So, I still say it depends on exactly what type(s) of additional actions Trump has in mind as to whether the president needs to consult with Congress. But one additional point: the ONLY thing he has to consult with Congress about is asking them to declare war, as that is the ONLY authority granted congress with respect to the use of military force. Congress passing a resolution "granting authority" to use military force is not in the Constitution, anywhere. They either declare war, or they do not.

Quote from: Solar on April 08, 2017, 01:28:26 PM
As stated above, Congress has the power to Impeach, meaning the POTUS is not afforded dictatorial powers. If Congress exercises its power as guaranteed in the Constitution, then there is no need for further instruction.

And, again, show me the verbiage in the Constitution which grants the authority you describe, giving congress authority over presidential use of military force. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. They'd have to define the use of military force by the Commander in Chief of the military to be a high crime, because congress does not agree with what the president did. That would be a total usurpation of power.

Quote from: Solar on April 07, 2017, 01:42:33 AM
....
NORTH Korea is ready to deliver the "most ruthless blow" if provoked by the United States, its ambassador to Moscow said overnight, after US President Donald Trump pledged to keep building up defences against Pyongyang. (see graphic:
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/north-korea-vows-most-ruthless-blow-on-united-states-after-donald-trump-pledges-to-build-up-defences-against-pyongyang/news-story/26da808f8df88eed8c617bdd347d886b

"Our army has already said that if there will be even the smallest provocation from the United States during exercises, we are ready to deliver the most ruthless blow," Interfax news agency quoted ambassador Kim Hyong-Jun as saying.
"We have the readiness and ability to counter any challenge from the US," he was quoted as saying.

As Nick Danger (Firesign Theature) said, "I wonder where Ruth is?"   ...what a joke.