swade2569

That is true but he didn’t declare war so he didn’t break the law. I WISH that we’re breaking the law but the fact is Congress has abdicated that responsibility and there is precedent to support the executive killing people with the use of the military.

We need Congress to stand up for itself and revoke the ability to abuse the use of the armed forces, by making laws that have consequences and enforce those consequences on any executive who breaks them, even if they’re in the majority’s party.

Congress has largely looked the other way for some 50 years as far as war powers go (along with a lot more of its exclusive power). Worse yet while there is text to say that the executive will execute the laws created by congress, they largely pick and choose the laws they enforce and to what degree, which is constantly ignored (especially when the executive and majority in congress share the same party).

We now have a situation where the executive sees how loose the responsibility and accountability congress wields, and now decides to violate the norms and there no standard for congress to follow. Congress all seem to be looking at each other shrugging, while rank and file military see nothing in a future of pain and loss for standing up to do the right thing because ultimately nobody has thier backs.

I only wish treaties were upheld as laws are but we have a long history of treaties being broken and no trial took place other than a trial of arms. If only we had an international court, unanimously agreed upon by the nations of the world.

What’s the illegal order then? Is it illegal to attack an ally because you want something they have? There probably isn’t a law against that specifically, and if there is, how are service members going to know that?

All the authoritarianism with 50% less grift?