General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsaoc: "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution an
Link to tweet
The Presidents disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers.
He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.
It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.
mjvpi
(1,889 posts)Hopefully this helps the Nobel committee make up their minds.
Mossfern
(4,651 posts)Israel
Iran
US
mjvpi
(1,889 posts)UTUSN
(77,272 posts)Skittles
(170,154 posts)zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Walleye
(44,028 posts)Bother to consult any of the Democratic leaders in Congress. He didnt exactly consult the Republicans either. He just scared them.
sakabatou
(45,904 posts)Beartracks
(14,447 posts)David__77
(24,509 posts)And even with authorization, it would be immoral.
.
speak easy
(12,595 posts)Wednesdays
(21,856 posts)"Impeach me? Bwahahahahahah! As if!"
Aussie105
(7,716 posts)if the Presidential Nutcase had proper authority to order the aerial transport and use of those weapons of mass destruction in Iran?
It was just a matter of Trump saying . . . Go blow the place up!
And there were some smart salutes, fuelling up and arming some big war toys, and a quick in and out over Iran?
Just a reminder - President Nutcase has the nuclear codes!
Seinan Sensei
(1,430 posts)Hell, no ones in the room
Best I can tell, theyre all out on the playground
Jack Valentino
(4,618 posts)There ought to be some "updates" to the "War Powers Resolution"....
orleans
(36,728 posts)"Attacking terrorist groups (non-state actors) differs from attacking a nation-state. Non-state actors, like al-Qaeda, lack sovereignty and operate across borders; U.S. actions against them often use the 2001 AUMF, requiring no new Congressional approval, and are seen as targeted operations. Attacking a nation-state, like Iran, is a formal act of war, typically needing Congressional authorization under the Constitution and War Powers Resolution, with risks of escalation into full-scale conflict. International law restricts force against states but allows self-defense against non-state actors under debated doctrines. Historical precedents show both practices, but nation-state actions are more controversial."
Link to tweet
calimary
(89,270 posts)I bet there'll be arguments for a Trump impeachment every year for the rest of this four-year term.
It'd be one really unique way to go down in history, donald.