that is false. it is doing exactly what the law says it does not do, taking the reporting requirements as authorization
Yes, but that is the issue for Congress when (if) they vote to either authorize the action or not. They will decide whether his decision was warranted or not. Either way, there are no real consequences for the President just as there have been no consequences for any President in the past.
Whatâs the difference?
What are you talking about? The law is very clear that he has only 60 days to conduct military actions unless Congress authorizes it.
no, that is not what it says. Thats a reporting requirement which the law explicitly states is not authorization. That is the purposeful misreading every administration has done
I know that. But both sections apply. The whole point of the law is to balance the need for President to be able to use force when the need to do so is imminent while still maintaining the authority of Congress to have the sole authority to declare war.
no, that is what they have made it by purposefully misreading it. The WPA does not authorize the President to use force anywhere that the President did not have the authority to use it before it was passed. All it does is require him to submit a report in cases where he is constitutionally authorized to act without congressional authorization.
prevent or respond to an invasion or incursion
protect American forces and people overseas
prevent an imminent attack on either
thats it, no other action is lawful without congressional authorization
I guess you could add put down rebellion
Responding while the iron is hot is an emergency. Just the kind of thing the War Powers Act was set up for.
responding to what?
invasion or incursion
attack or imminent attack on US Forces or persons
not because we think lybia should have have new leadership
not because we donât like âxâ
not because we like âyâ
Now, if you want to argue that Iran obtaining Nuclear weapons is an imminent threat to US forces or persons⌠I can see that, they already attack or sponsor those who attack us.
Responding to the window of opportunity provided by the Israeli attacks that took out Iranâs control of their airspace. Had Trump not pulled the trigger on the B2 raid, there may not have been another opportunity and Iran would most likely have soon achieve their goal of acquiring nuclear weapons. Nobody outside of Iran wanted to see that. If that was not an emergency critical to the security of the United States, I donât know what is.
I did not say I did not think it was not the smart thing to do. I definitely agree it was. That does not mean it was lawful. It may have been if you consider Iran getting Nukes an imminent threat to US forces⌠which I think it would be. That however does not mean every action the President takes is lawful. Libya definitely was not. Nor Kosovo. Panama was questionable and likely unlawful.
Whether it was lawful or not is based on the subjectivity built into the law. Hence, it does not matter. Nobody is going to court over it.
There is no subjectivity built into the law, reporting requirements are not authorization. That is a misreading.
Of course itâs subjective. Define imminent emergency.
1 Like
thats not in the law
"In the absence of a declaration of war by the Congress, in any case in which the Armed Forces of the United States are introduced in hostilities, or in situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances ⌠".
Sounds like an imminent emergency.to me.
the word emergency is not in there.
It doesnât matter. The principle of urgency is.
urgency isnât there either
Quit playing the word game. What do you think âimminentâ and âclearly indicated by the circumstancesâ mean?
