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
(1,937 posts)Hopefully this helps the Nobel committee make up their minds.
Mossfern
(4,782 posts)Israel
Iran
US
mjvpi
(1,937 posts)UTUSN
(77,795 posts)Skittles
(172,895 posts)zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Walleye
(45,500 posts)Bother to consult any of the Democratic leaders in Congress. He didnt exactly consult the Republicans either. He just scared them.
sakabatou
(46,342 posts)Beartracks
(14,653 posts)David__77
(24,860 posts)And even with authorization, it would be immoral.
.
speak easy
(12,598 posts)Wednesdays
(23,149 posts)"Impeach me? Bwahahahahahah! As if!"
Aussie105
(8,185 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
(1,645 posts)Hell, no ones in the room
Best I can tell, theyre all out on the playground
Jack Valentino
(5,252 posts)There ought to be some "updates" to the "War Powers Resolution"....
orleans
(37,200 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
(90,830 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.
red dog 1
(33,471 posts)purple_haze
(401 posts)
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.