Yes, strong tough responses, like this one from Rep. Hakeem Jeffries:
“Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region” but he added that outside of “exigent circumstances” the president “must seek authorization for the preemptive use of military force that constitutes an act of war.”
In other words, we aren't really against the war exactly, and maybe even support it, but you just didn't ask us first...
Nothing about the over 200 civilians already killed by the US and Israel...nothing about the 80+ killed at a school already by Israel and the US... nothing about the flagrant violation of international law.... nothing about Israel's genocide and apartheid, only the 'threat' Iran poses to the country that has bombed Iran several times and has again launched a massive and unprovoked attack. ...
The was isn't wrong only because Congress didn't give approval. It would still be a blatant violation of international law even if Congress said it was ok.
..still wrapping my head around the nerve of Trump and co claiming to launch an illegal war to fight tyranny, oppression, the usual lip service......in partnership with the country that has committed genocide on a people it has illegally occupied and violently oppressed for generations, with over 70,000 killed and tens of thousands more dead still not counted...
Jason, well said. You're quite right that the mere authorization from Congress isn't dispositive. The People in our Constitution (Article VI) established that "the supreme Law of the Land" consists exclusively of "[t]his Constitution, and [federal] Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties," and "all executive and judicial Officers" and all legislators "of the United States and of [all] States" are "bound" to "support this Constitution."
The point of the foregoing text was to establish that all parts of the supreme law of the land necessarily govern all conduct of all our public servants. So in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall (writing for SCOTUS) emphasized, "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." SCOTUS further emphasized that "the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law. . . . The constitution is [necessarily the] superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means. . . . Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature" (any act of any public servant) "repugnant to the constitution, is void."
In 1988, Justice Scalia, in his (famous) dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson, also emphasized "that we have 'a government of laws and not of men.'"
As I said elsewhere, I'm beginning to Think the orange dumpster was much more involved in the Epstein/Maxwell affair than known so far. Netanyahoo will just do anything to stay out of prison. They are both criminals and, yes, war criminals.
As far as Democrats go, their entire leadership needs to be replaced. Why are they not screaming at the top of their lungs?
Right on, AB. I don't understand at all why Dems cannot coordinate their stance and messaging. It leaves our asses in the wind. These individual statements don't mean shit.
Of all of the reactions above to Trump's unconstitutional declaration of war against Iran, only one of those speaking out, Rep. Massie of Kentucky, is a Republican . Where are his Republican colleagues? What exactly will it take for them to stop cowering in fear of Trump and do the jobs they were elected to do?
Mind you, I have long since given up expecting any of them to act on the basis of integrity or principle, but one would think that concern about keeping their majority in November might cause them to finally decide Trump is a liability to their own grip on power. How weak must these people be when even self-interest does not motivate them to act on the basis of the oath they took to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution?
Rand Paul is a second Republican speaking out. That’s two.
You ask good questions. My answer is that they don’t actually believe in democracy. They believe in party and doing what the party says, which is what Trump says. And since they don’t believe in democracy, they’re all hoping Trump is successful in rigging the midterms so Republicans win. What else can we conclude? From their perspective, they are acting in their self-interest, which is with Trump all the way.
Thank you for writing Lisa. I'm afraid you are absolutely right. They don't care about democracy. However, it's up to every one of us to tell them that we do still care about our democracy. We must do everything we can to make sure we have elections in November and that they are free and fair. We the people must tell them in no uncertain terms that we still want and a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Many people who are speaking out to support Trump or support his attacks on Iran (last year and this year) or on Venezuela (in the capital or in the ocean) are quibbling over the meaning of "war." Many also like to highlight that many times the U.S. has waged war without a "declaration of war" by Congress.
They're committing at least three obvious and egregious mistakes: (1) trying to read our Constitution by relying on a mere dictionary, (2) ignoring other relevant parts of our Constitution and (3) ignoring the principles and purposes of the text, e.g., re: separation of powers.
The most relevant powers that were enumerated in Article I as being vested exclusively in Congress include the power to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations" and to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
The powers of Congress also include authorizing executive action that is necessary and proper in relation to the enumerated powers (and prohibiting executive action that isn't necessary or isn't proper). That's why Article I expressly emphasizes that “Congress shall have Power” to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [all] Powers [of Congress], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including the executive and judicial branches).
So the meaning or existence of mere "war" or a mere "declaration of war" is barely, if at all, relevant. The primary principle at work is the separation of powers for the purpose of preserving our liberties.
In Article I, the People vested in Congress the foregoing "legislative Powers." In Article II the People vested in the President only the "executive Power." Our Constitution clarified that, generally, "executive Power" means only the power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and to "faithfully execute the Office of President," i.e., to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Regarding the particular powers of Congress at issue here, "executive Power" means merely the power to "be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
When the President exercises "executive Power" as the "Commander in Chief" to attack another nation, he's obviously and necessarily almost always required to act under express authorization by Congress. An exception applies to the President to the same extent as it applied to state governors (especially in the first decades after the Constitution was written and ratified). Article I, Section 10 clarified that a "State" may "without the Consent of Congress" unilaterally "engage in War" if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Justice Scalia, in his (famous) dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson in 1988, emphasized "that we have 'a government of laws and not of men.'" He emphasized that "[t]he Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison [emphasized] that “[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.” As Justice Scalia emphasized, "Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless."
Madison in Federalist No. 47 (quoting Montesquieu in The Spirt of the Laws in 1754) emphasized the reason for the rule (separation of powers):
"There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner."
Trump and his supporters are highlighting the self-evident truth that Montesquieu, Madison and Scalia highlighted: Trump and his supporters, ultimately, are attacking and undermining our Constitution by supporting tyranny and the president's unconstitutional usurpation of powers that the People reserved to Congress to secure our liberty and keep us safe from tyrants.
Thank you for writing Jack, and even more so for an excellent analysis of what our Constitution and those who wrote it meant when they wrote that document. They vested the power to declare war in the Congress because they did not want one person to have the power to invade another country, putting the lives of innocent people and of our military at risk. That kind of decision had to be vested in the body of Congress so that it would be understood as representing all of us. We must do everything we can to make sure our representatives recognize that we the people did not authorize this war and will hold them accountable in November if they fail to stop our would be king before he does even more harm.
Yes, the first thing Congress should do, asap, is vote on a War Powers Resolution to stop Trump from proceeding further. The second thing they should do is recognize that the circumstances of his decision meets the requirement for impeachment and subsequent removal from office, and immediately begin proceedings accordingly. Surely, this falls within the "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" that the Constitution lays out as reasons for removal from office..
And yet when Trump mentioned hostilities toward Iran in the State of the Union speech, he got a standing ovation from the Democrats in attendance. What the hell were they thinking then, and what is the process forward to stop it now? Gov. Pritzker was right in calling it “No justification, no authorization from Congress, and no clear objective." It's also illegal and goes against the Constitution.
Nearly all the of the comments cited are from Democrats or Democrat leaning organizations. Where are the Republicans? Where is Congress? Some of the Republicans have already said what a great idea the attacks were. Thats what we are fighting and must eliminate in November.
These responses just look lame. Trump was building up to this attack for weeks. That would have been the time for members of Congress and pundits to be asking questions. Or, you know, decades ago, the last time Congress had any active role in declaring war.
"Everything Constant did he did in style - aggressively, loudly, childishly. wastefully - making himself and mankind look bad. Constant bristled with courage - but was anything but un-neurotic. Every courageous thing he had ever done had been motivated by spitefulness and by goads from childhood that made fear seem puny indeed" Kurt Vonnegut, "The Sirens of Titan" 1959, ISBN : 0-385-33349-8. Put Trump in place of Constant and you have a perfect description of the man. Rich S, Octogenarian and Contrarian
Give me strength. Are they ACTUALLY going to do something that shows to the American people that the USA still has a Congress in the fight to keep our Republic? I doubt it actually. I believe the USA has been bought, lock stock and barrel by the billionaire conglomerate of World Rapists . Thanks John Roberts. History sees your dishonor. You set us up to Decline and Fall and Congress has licked your boots until we can all see your shining face of Constitutional betrayal .
You gave the Republic to a Fascist regime. The question is, WHY.
Nobody who adheres to democracy and freedom will mourn the death of Khamenei, but the last people who should engage in regime change are the dementia riddled Trump and the confederacy of dunces in his administration including the drunken rapist Kegsbreath, the flip-floppy spineless Rubio or the wacko cult member Tulsi.
These incompetents have no strategy. There is no after action plan. All of the past regime change incursions tried by the US have ended up in abject failure. After 20 years of fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Taliban is back in power. After decapitating the leadership in Iraq following the invasion, that morphed into ISIS and the terror campaign of destruction and beheadings.
The same or worse will happen in Iran with this Trump fiasco. His corrupt regime is too arrogant, too stupid, too ignorant, too mendacious, and too incompetent to pull this off.
The 🌏 is watching as Trump and Kegseth play their latest video game, this time with more consequences than in Venezuela…this could drag half the world into conflict. ….however, I am predicting that Trump, having stirred up historic enmities in the Middle East, will declare Mission Accomplished in a week, and leave the terrible mess behind….after all, he is truly a Taco…just watch this happen…and Israel have begun their colonial expansion across defeated countries…
Yes, strong tough responses, like this one from Rep. Hakeem Jeffries:
“Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region” but he added that outside of “exigent circumstances” the president “must seek authorization for the preemptive use of military force that constitutes an act of war.”
In other words, we aren't really against the war exactly, and maybe even support it, but you just didn't ask us first...
Nothing about the over 200 civilians already killed by the US and Israel...nothing about the 80+ killed at a school already by Israel and the US... nothing about the flagrant violation of international law.... nothing about Israel's genocide and apartheid, only the 'threat' Iran poses to the country that has bombed Iran several times and has again launched a massive and unprovoked attack. ...
The was isn't wrong only because Congress didn't give approval. It would still be a blatant violation of international law even if Congress said it was ok.
..still wrapping my head around the nerve of Trump and co claiming to launch an illegal war to fight tyranny, oppression, the usual lip service......in partnership with the country that has committed genocide on a people it has illegally occupied and violently oppressed for generations, with over 70,000 killed and tens of thousands more dead still not counted...
The two war criminals collaborate in cahoots. What could go wrong?
It is also a violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war.
Jason, well said. You're quite right that the mere authorization from Congress isn't dispositive. The People in our Constitution (Article VI) established that "the supreme Law of the Land" consists exclusively of "[t]his Constitution, and [federal] Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties," and "all executive and judicial Officers" and all legislators "of the United States and of [all] States" are "bound" to "support this Constitution."
The point of the foregoing text was to establish that all parts of the supreme law of the land necessarily govern all conduct of all our public servants. So in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall (writing for SCOTUS) emphasized, "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." SCOTUS further emphasized that "the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law. . . . The constitution is [necessarily the] superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means. . . . Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature" (any act of any public servant) "repugnant to the constitution, is void."
In 1988, Justice Scalia, in his (famous) dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson, also emphasized "that we have 'a government of laws and not of men.'"
jerk!
As I said elsewhere, I'm beginning to Think the orange dumpster was much more involved in the Epstein/Maxwell affair than known so far. Netanyahoo will just do anything to stay out of prison. They are both criminals and, yes, war criminals.
As far as Democrats go, their entire leadership needs to be replaced. Why are they not screaming at the top of their lungs?
Right on, AB. I don't understand at all why Dems cannot coordinate their stance and messaging. It leaves our asses in the wind. These individual statements don't mean shit.
Of all of the reactions above to Trump's unconstitutional declaration of war against Iran, only one of those speaking out, Rep. Massie of Kentucky, is a Republican . Where are his Republican colleagues? What exactly will it take for them to stop cowering in fear of Trump and do the jobs they were elected to do?
Mind you, I have long since given up expecting any of them to act on the basis of integrity or principle, but one would think that concern about keeping their majority in November might cause them to finally decide Trump is a liability to their own grip on power. How weak must these people be when even self-interest does not motivate them to act on the basis of the oath they took to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution?
Rand Paul is a second Republican speaking out. That’s two.
You ask good questions. My answer is that they don’t actually believe in democracy. They believe in party and doing what the party says, which is what Trump says. And since they don’t believe in democracy, they’re all hoping Trump is successful in rigging the midterms so Republicans win. What else can we conclude? From their perspective, they are acting in their self-interest, which is with Trump all the way.
Thank you for writing Lisa. I'm afraid you are absolutely right. They don't care about democracy. However, it's up to every one of us to tell them that we do still care about our democracy. We must do everything we can to make sure we have elections in November and that they are free and fair. We the people must tell them in no uncertain terms that we still want and a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Many people who are speaking out to support Trump or support his attacks on Iran (last year and this year) or on Venezuela (in the capital or in the ocean) are quibbling over the meaning of "war." Many also like to highlight that many times the U.S. has waged war without a "declaration of war" by Congress.
They're committing at least three obvious and egregious mistakes: (1) trying to read our Constitution by relying on a mere dictionary, (2) ignoring other relevant parts of our Constitution and (3) ignoring the principles and purposes of the text, e.g., re: separation of powers.
The most relevant powers that were enumerated in Article I as being vested exclusively in Congress include the power to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations" and to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
The powers of Congress also include authorizing executive action that is necessary and proper in relation to the enumerated powers (and prohibiting executive action that isn't necessary or isn't proper). That's why Article I expressly emphasizes that “Congress shall have Power” to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [all] Powers [of Congress], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including the executive and judicial branches).
So the meaning or existence of mere "war" or a mere "declaration of war" is barely, if at all, relevant. The primary principle at work is the separation of powers for the purpose of preserving our liberties.
In Article I, the People vested in Congress the foregoing "legislative Powers." In Article II the People vested in the President only the "executive Power." Our Constitution clarified that, generally, "executive Power" means only the power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and to "faithfully execute the Office of President," i.e., to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Regarding the particular powers of Congress at issue here, "executive Power" means merely the power to "be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
When the President exercises "executive Power" as the "Commander in Chief" to attack another nation, he's obviously and necessarily almost always required to act under express authorization by Congress. An exception applies to the President to the same extent as it applied to state governors (especially in the first decades after the Constitution was written and ratified). Article I, Section 10 clarified that a "State" may "without the Consent of Congress" unilaterally "engage in War" if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Justice Scalia, in his (famous) dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson in 1988, emphasized "that we have 'a government of laws and not of men.'" He emphasized that "[t]he Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison [emphasized] that “[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.” As Justice Scalia emphasized, "Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless."
Madison in Federalist No. 47 (quoting Montesquieu in The Spirt of the Laws in 1754) emphasized the reason for the rule (separation of powers):
"There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner."
Trump and his supporters are highlighting the self-evident truth that Montesquieu, Madison and Scalia highlighted: Trump and his supporters, ultimately, are attacking and undermining our Constitution by supporting tyranny and the president's unconstitutional usurpation of powers that the People reserved to Congress to secure our liberty and keep us safe from tyrants.
Thank you for writing Jack, and even more so for an excellent analysis of what our Constitution and those who wrote it meant when they wrote that document. They vested the power to declare war in the Congress because they did not want one person to have the power to invade another country, putting the lives of innocent people and of our military at risk. That kind of decision had to be vested in the body of Congress so that it would be understood as representing all of us. We must do everything we can to make sure our representatives recognize that we the people did not authorize this war and will hold them accountable in November if they fail to stop our would be king before he does even more harm.
Yes, the first thing Congress should do, asap, is vote on a War Powers Resolution to stop Trump from proceeding further. The second thing they should do is recognize that the circumstances of his decision meets the requirement for impeachment and subsequent removal from office, and immediately begin proceedings accordingly. Surely, this falls within the "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" that the Constitution lays out as reasons for removal from office..
Mister says: "It's not my tax money. It's not my kids' lives. Go for it."
And yet when Trump mentioned hostilities toward Iran in the State of the Union speech, he got a standing ovation from the Democrats in attendance. What the hell were they thinking then, and what is the process forward to stop it now? Gov. Pritzker was right in calling it “No justification, no authorization from Congress, and no clear objective." It's also illegal and goes against the Constitution.
Nearly all the of the comments cited are from Democrats or Democrat leaning organizations. Where are the Republicans? Where is Congress? Some of the Republicans have already said what a great idea the attacks were. Thats what we are fighting and must eliminate in November.
This from the guy who is convinced he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize!
These responses just look lame. Trump was building up to this attack for weeks. That would have been the time for members of Congress and pundits to be asking questions. Or, you know, decades ago, the last time Congress had any active role in declaring war.
Congress, TAKE BACK YOUR POWER!
One lonely Republican condemnation. Sickening. If you’re the Trump voting mother of an American soldier it’s way past time to reconsider!
"Everything Constant did he did in style - aggressively, loudly, childishly. wastefully - making himself and mankind look bad. Constant bristled with courage - but was anything but un-neurotic. Every courageous thing he had ever done had been motivated by spitefulness and by goads from childhood that made fear seem puny indeed" Kurt Vonnegut, "The Sirens of Titan" 1959, ISBN : 0-385-33349-8. Put Trump in place of Constant and you have a perfect description of the man. Rich S, Octogenarian and Contrarian
Give me strength. Are they ACTUALLY going to do something that shows to the American people that the USA still has a Congress in the fight to keep our Republic? I doubt it actually. I believe the USA has been bought, lock stock and barrel by the billionaire conglomerate of World Rapists . Thanks John Roberts. History sees your dishonor. You set us up to Decline and Fall and Congress has licked your boots until we can all see your shining face of Constitutional betrayal .
You gave the Republic to a Fascist regime. The question is, WHY.
Nobody who adheres to democracy and freedom will mourn the death of Khamenei, but the last people who should engage in regime change are the dementia riddled Trump and the confederacy of dunces in his administration including the drunken rapist Kegsbreath, the flip-floppy spineless Rubio or the wacko cult member Tulsi.
These incompetents have no strategy. There is no after action plan. All of the past regime change incursions tried by the US have ended up in abject failure. After 20 years of fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Taliban is back in power. After decapitating the leadership in Iraq following the invasion, that morphed into ISIS and the terror campaign of destruction and beheadings.
The same or worse will happen in Iran with this Trump fiasco. His corrupt regime is too arrogant, too stupid, too ignorant, too mendacious, and too incompetent to pull this off.
The 🌏 is watching as Trump and Kegseth play their latest video game, this time with more consequences than in Venezuela…this could drag half the world into conflict. ….however, I am predicting that Trump, having stirred up historic enmities in the Middle East, will declare Mission Accomplished in a week, and leave the terrible mess behind….after all, he is truly a Taco…just watch this happen…and Israel have begun their colonial expansion across defeated countries…
Republicans won't comment or and/or their comments are not included in the post?