Comment by carefulfungi
3 days ago
Does fact that Congress, not the President, has the power to "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" matter? Or is the constitution not what you voted for?
You are correct, but also it doesn't matter because the US has flaunted the constitution in precisely this way for every single war America has been in since WW2. Wars without congressional declaration are de facto legal and have been for as long as you and I have been alive.
This, of course, is one of the reasons why people's opinion of the USA has been steadily dropping.
They don't play by the rules that they themselves created. They are not a trustworthy partner.
Any country that can ought to be removing any and all dependencies on the USA as a matter of priority - as Europe is doing for military matters. It's actually pretty easy, you just schmooze the orange fuckwit and tell him everything's ok, and then you do what you want, incrementally so you can boil that frog.
Europe's defense newswires are full of interesting stuff supposedly happening, but until money is reallocated from welfare to defense, nothing is actually happening for all practical purposes.
In other words: a bunch of hot air. And will EU denizens agree to lowering their welfare spending to fund defense? Questionable, given the recent tantrums in France over raising the retirement age (which is objectively necessary for their budget.)
Finally, no superpower in the history of humanity has or will irrevocably bound themselves by the "rules they create" on the global stage. Expecting any superpower to do so is sheltered naïveté at best. The real world does not work that way, superpowers will do whatever they feel is in their best interest regardless of "international law" and this will never change so long as geopolitics exists.
This is factually incorrect.
The Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorized war in Vietnam. A Joint resolution authorized the Gulf War. Two of many counter examples.
Look I agree this whole thing is wrong, but to say this instance of regime change, unprovoked attack, war, whatever you call it is UNIQUELY unconstitutional is obviously wrong.
Every US President since the end of WW2 has waged war without a formal declaration of war from Congress. And presidents from both parties will continue to do so.
This is not to say it's right or good. But there is surely widespread agreement that it is constitutional to do things like this, and there has been for nearly a century.
> but to say this instance of regime change,
A regime is not a single person, e.g. Mr Maduro largely continued from Mr Chavez.
If it is true that Mr Maduro has been abducted, there will surely be changes to the regime in Venezuela. A complete change of regime, however, is not guaranteed. And trying to do it might require more application of forcer, with all the attendant risks of that.
I’m pretty sure he didn’t vote for the constitution.