How Bout A US Civics Lesson??

BushartBushart Senior MemberPosts: 2,713 Senior Member
So how much authority does Cheeto Caesar actually have?

Correct me on this if wrong---does he not need approval from Congress to go to war?
«1

Replies

  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,927 Senior Member
    Trump has as much authority as Bush, Obama and Johnson to engage in illegal wars.
  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,713 Senior Member
    OK one wild card just in

    China announces today that if North Korea acts -preemptively it will not support NK if responded to with force

    Here's the however---they also say if The US or South Korea shoot 1st---China will aid the North

    Nothin from Putin that I hear yet??
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,816 Senior Member
    Bushart wrote: »
    So how much authority does Cheeto Caesar actually have?

    All of the authority that he needs.

    The question has never been satisfactorily resolved as a constitutional matter. The Courts are unlikely to intervene, and in any case Congress is generally happy to defer to the executive branch.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,816 Senior Member
    You see that briefcase-toting field grade officer who is always in close proximity to the President? Yeah, that guy? You see him there?

    That's not a member of Congress.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,359 Senior Member
    Bushart wrote: »
    Nothin from Putin that I hear yet??

    He's out looking for Yakov Malik.
  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,713 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    You see that briefcase-toting field grade officer who is always in close proximity to the President? Yeah, that guy? You see him there?

    That's not a member of Congress.

    Scary the codes are that close to a loose cannon
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,816 Senior Member
    See, Lawyers tend to look at issues in terms of the available remedy. Is there a violation of the Constitution if there's no remedy?

    Justin Amash (R-Michigan) is insisting today that subsection (c) of the War Powers resolution prevents Trump from going to war with NK without explicit congressional authorization. And indeed subsection (c) does say that.

    But let's say the President does it anyway, like Clinton did in Kosovo. What's the remedy for a violation? The president can always claim that the War Powers resolution either (1) unconstitutionally infringes upon his inherent authority under Article II, or (2) he could simply choose to limit US involvement to 60 days. But regardless, there is no judicial remedy for a violation, because no federal court would hear the case, considering it to be a political, rather than a legal dispute.
  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,713 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    See, Lawyers tend to look at issues in terms of the available remedy. Is there a violation of the Constitution if there's no remedy?

    Justin Amash (R-Michigan) is insisting today that subsection (c) of the War Powers resolution prevents Trump from going to war with NK without explicit congressional authorization. And indeed subsection (c) does say that.

    But let's say the President does it anyway, like Clinton did in Kosovo. What's the remedy for a violation? The president can always claim that the War Powers resolution either (1) unconstitutionally infringes upon his inherent authority under Article II, or (2) he could simply choose to limit US involvement to 60 days. But regardless, there is no judicial remedy for a violation, because no federal court would hear the case, considering it to be a political, rather than a legal dispute.

    So Congressional approval maybe only worth the paper it is printed on---and no more
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,816 Senior Member
    Bushart wrote: »
    So Congressional approval maybe only worth the paper it is printed on---and no more

    Well, they still have options, up to and including impeachment. And they control the funding for these wars. That doesn't change.

    But telling the President no to military action is no small matter, and I've seen nothing to indicate that this Congress would do it.
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    In the real world, I think the Generals would have to refuse to follow orders they do not consider legal under the law in order to stop the POTUS from starting a conflict. Good luck with that.
    Maybe Congress might pass a bill requiring congressional approval for a preemptive act of war against say N.Korea. That would give the generals cover.
  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,713 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Well, they still have options, up to and including impeachment. And they control the funding for these wars. That doesn't change.

    But telling the President no to military action is no small matter, and I've seen nothing to indicate that this Congress would do it.

    Would be interesting how the Republican Congress views this going's on currently
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,816 Senior Member
    So, I did some reading, and apparently Nixon was so unhinged, drunk, and unstable towards the end that a couple of senior staff had decided that they weren't going to let Nixon go nuclear. I wish I could find that story. I wonder if there's a similar dynamic playing out today. I doubt it, since Trump requires his acolytes to provide him with positive news stories about himself twice a day. Really.
  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,713 Senior Member
    creekguy wrote: »
    In the real world, I think the Generals would have to refuse to follow orders they do not consider legal under the law in order to stop the POTUS from starting a conflict. Good luck with that.
    Maybe Congress might pass a bill requiring congressional approval for a preemptive act of war against say N.Korea. That would give the generals cover.

    Rogue Generals---if it was anywhere else they would call it a coup

    But limiting presidential powers---would'nt that require Constitutional amendments?
  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,713 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    So, I did some reading, and apparently Nixon was so unhinged, drunk, and unstable towards the end that a couple of senior staff had decided that they weren't going to let Nixon go nuclear. I wish I could find that story. I wonder if there's a similar dynamic playing out today. I doubt it, since Trump requires his acolytes to provide him with positive news stories about himself twice a day. Really.

    Yeah he's taken credit for the stock market increase---wonder if he's owning the decline happening with this war of words
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,816 Senior Member
    Bushart wrote: »

    But limiting presidential powers---wouldn't that require Constitutional amendments?

    You could argue that presidential power is limited already. Or conversely, you could argue that its not. The text, as in many areas, is vague and doesn't provide much in the way of clarity.

    I think a better solution is the one that already exists for the people that have to actually fire the missiles. Require TWO people to sign off-not just one. Granted, this abrogates the president's authority somewhat, but then it was controversial when Eisenhower said that we needed to give the president unilateral authority in the first place.
  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,713 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »

    Ok after reading this it seems do-able

    The president does not need approval to fire the nukes--thus giving him protective reaction powers--to avoid catastrophe
    But that's if your fired upon
    One would think he should have to seek approval to initiate---Reason I assume they took the ball away from Nixon
  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,713 Senior Member
    After writing this---I cannot come up with a single plausible reason why any country would Initiate

    These weapons by design I believe are for a defensive position---no right minded leader would fire just to flex their muscle
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,359 Senior Member
    It just occurred to me. Once again, the Yellow Avenger failed to rise from the rice paddies on August 6th, and Sally is getting pissed as hell.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,882 Senior Member
    Trump has sole authority to nuke'em; isn't that a happy thought? See post number 9 if you think legal niceties might obtain.

    By the time the Joint Chiefs decided it was an illegal order it would be too late. That decision would have to be made by the above mentioned field grade officer carrying the "football". It would not surprise me if those officers have had a Dutch uncle talking-to by officers with blinding amounts of stars on their shoulders about what to do if there is the slightest suspicion that the Fourth Grader in Chief is deranged, or at any rate more deranged than usual.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • WetdogWetdog Senior Member Posts: 5,149 Senior Member
    I object to the cheeto disparagement linked to trump. What have cheetos ever done to you?

    trump is a blowhard, he's not going to do anything just as N Korea isn't. Kim stupid jerk wants to hold onto power, he won't if he sends us missiles. Trump on the other hand hates being seen as weak, which he is...as weak as a ten year old girl. No offense to ten year old girls. I also think Madis sp? will have him shot if he tries to "push the button."
    I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
    I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 6,809 Senior Member
    Bushart wrote: »
    ---no right minded leader would fire just to flex their muscle

    See examples A and B.

    You gotta think that one of the generals would refuse the order if Trump were to give the order to initiate a first strike.

    This whole thing... What a **** buffoon! He played right into Kim's hands by rising to the bait. Both of these lunatics only want attention. Let's hope their appetite for such does not involve a whole lot of dead people before cooler heads prevail. But then I have to ask; what cooler heads? Who is going to be able to stroke Trump's ego while at the same time convincing him to tone down the rhetoric? Who has his ear at this crucial time?
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    But it does divert attention from Russia, no..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • WetdogWetdog Senior Member Posts: 5,149 Senior Member
    ricinus wrote: »
    But it does divert attention from Russia, no..

    Mike

    Hand that man a prize.
    I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
    I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 6,809 Senior Member
    Mike and Michael are giving Trump too much credit. He isn't using this to deflect. His attention span is that of a squirrel with ADHD. Anything politically advantageous is a dumb luck by-product of his lunacy.
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 2,957 Senior Member
    Wetdog wrote: »
    I object to the cheeto disparagement linked to trump. What have cheetos ever done to you?

    trump is a blowhard, he's not going to do anything just as N Korea isn't. Kim stupid jerk wants to hold onto power, he won't if he sends us missiles. Trump on the other hand hates being seen as weak, which he is...as weak as a ten year old girl. No offense to ten year old girls. I also think Madis sp? will have him shot if he tries to "push the button."

    Now you are getting silly, ten year old girls?
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie just look at the flowers.
  • GoldenladleGoldenladle Super Moderator Posts: 3,878 Senior Member
    ricinus wrote: »
    But it does divert attention from Russia, no..

    Mike


    This


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,713 Senior Member
    In keeping with the whole America 1st.....So far

    Syria
    North Korea
    How Bout Venezuela now

    Cheetos turn my hands orange---hard to get out of ole bean bag chair :-)
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,969 Senior Member
    Bushart wrote: »
    These weapons by design I believe are for a defensive position---no right minded leader would fire just to flex their muscle
    Is Kim Jong-Un in his right mind? What leader who likely has only a few small nuclear warheads and relatively, short-ranged missiles spouts off to a country that can crush his? Is he crazy or does he do it knowing that it sounds tough, but has no intention of provoking war?

    Trump is that much better. He could have said there would be consequences for NK without the "fire and fury" bravado, but bravado is all he knows.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.