One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Trump needs approval from Congress for a military strike.
Page 1 of 16 next> last>>
Jan 3, 2020 07:30:59   #
Cuda2020
 
This post was stated back in June, here we are again, he doesn't obey our own Constitutional laws...again and again and again.

Now we've listened to Trump accuse Obama for years of planning to attack Iran and start a war for his re-e******n, and here he is doing the very thing. Is anyone surprised?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/06/28/trump-wrong-iran-attack-requires-approval-from-congress-column/1564107001/

Reply
Jan 3, 2020 07:40:16   #
Liberty Tree
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
This post was stated back in June, here we are again, he doesn't obey our own Constitutional laws...again and again and again.

Now we've listened to Trump accuse Obama for years of planning to attack Iran and start a war for his re-e******n, and here he is doing the very thing. Is anyone surprised?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/06/28/trump-wrong-iran-attack-requires-approval-from-congress-column/1564107001/


If he did nothing you would compain about that. He will never do anything right in your eyes. You would prefer another Obama/Clinton B******i with more Americans dead.

Reply
Jan 3, 2020 07:49:00   #
Radiance3
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
This post was stated back in June, here we are again, he doesn't obey our own Constitutional laws...again and again and again.

Now we've listened to Trump accuse Obama for years of planning to attack Iran and start a war for his re-e******n, and here he is doing the very thing. Is anyone surprised?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/06/28/trump-wrong-iran-attack-requires-approval-from-congress-column/1564107001/

=====================
My goodness what you are talking is stupidity. The president is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and when terrorists attack our country, and our forces, he has the duty to respond with force immediately to thwart the attacks.

The 9/11 attack, and various other terror attacks by your Muslim friends was one of the examples. That is why no violent rug heads must be inside the US, or any other parts of US Forces in the world and along allied locations.


https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc092501.html

Reply
 
 
Jan 3, 2020 08:10:52   #
Cuda2020
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
If he did nothing you would compain about that. He will never do anything right in your eyes. You would prefer another Obama/Clinton B******i with more Americans dead.


Let's try to stick to the topic, and not typical personal attacks. I would prefer that he goes by the rules of law on engagement. If you want to talk about our dead, how about we talk about the length of years that war went on before Bin Laden was k**led? Have you counted them?

Reply
Jan 3, 2020 08:15:30   #
Cuda2020
 
Radiance3 wrote:
=====================
My goodness what you are talking is stupidity. The president is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and when terrorists attack our country, and our forces, he has the duty to respond with force immediately to thwart the attacks.

The 9/11 attack, and various other terror attacks by your Muslim friends was one of the examples. That is why no violent rug heads must be inside the US, or any other parts of US Forces in the world and along allied locations.


https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc092501.html
===================== br i My goodness what you a... (show quote)


Yes and after that horrendous attack, even Bush new the constitutional laws and abided by them. Once again Trump is not King or an Imperialist, simply a commander in chief and has to adhere to Congress.

Reply
Jan 3, 2020 08:20:50   #
American Vet
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Yes and after that horrendous attack, even Bush new the constitutional laws and abided by them. Once again Trump is not King or an Imperialist, simply a commander in chief and has to adhere to Congress.


I am not sure I agree. I suspect it would be a legal battle to determine if he had the authority to launch that strike. The War Powers Act of 73 limits the President's ability to initiate a conflict; however, this was not an "initiation" but rather a continuation of practices already in progress.

Reply
Jan 3, 2020 08:22:06   #
Radiance3
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Yes and after that horrendous attack, even Bush new the constitutional laws and abided by them. Once again Trump is not King or an Imperialist, simply a commander in chief and has to adhere to Congress.

==================
You really display your stupidity so much. You are not worth my time. Get lost.

Reply
 
 
Jan 3, 2020 08:24:32   #
Liberty Tree
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Yes and after that horrendous attack, even Bush new the constitutional laws and abided by them. Once again Trump is not King or an Imperialist, simply a commander in chief and has to adhere to Congress.


Pelosi and her minions cannot be trusted not to link everything for their personal advantage. Besides, this needed an immediate action. You engage in personal attacks on trump and his suporters but then want to accuse others of doing what you do.

Reply
Jan 3, 2020 08:24:33   #
Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas
 
Radiance3 wrote:
==================
You really display your stupidity so much. You are not worth my time. Get lost.



Reply
Jan 3, 2020 08:40:29   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Let's try to stick to the topic, and not typical personal attacks. I would prefer that he goes by the rules of law on engagement. If you want to talk about our dead, how about we talk about the length of years that war went on before Bin Laden was k**led? Have you counted them?


Okay, let us stick to law, In 1973, over the objection of Nixon, the War Power Resolution was signed. President Trump would not need Congressional approval for actions lasting less than 60 days. This law is clear, it provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." US Embassies are considered a "possession" for the duration of current contract with the host nation. Ergo, not only did President Trump make a "legal" call to strike, it was the right call to send the message that imaginary lines in the sand days are over.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp



Reply
Jan 3, 2020 08:42:20   #
JIM BETHEA
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
If he did nothing you would compain about that. He will never do anything right in your eyes. You would prefer another Obama/Clinton B******i with more Americans dead.



Reply
 
 
Jan 3, 2020 08:48:03   #
Liberty Tree
 
Pennylynn wrote:
Okay, let us stick to law, In 1973, over the objection of Nixon, the War Power Resolution was signed. President Trump would not need Congressional approval for actions lasting less than 60 days. This law is clear, it provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." US Embassies are considered a "possession" for the duration of current contract with the host nation. Ergo, not only did President Trump make a "legal" call to strike, it was the right call to send the message that imaginary lines in the sand days are over.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp
Okay, let us stick to law, In 1973, over the obje... (show quote)


Oh, how they h**e facts.

Reply
Jan 3, 2020 08:57:14   #
hdjimv Loc: South Dakota
 
Pennylynn wrote:
Okay, let us stick to law, In 1973, over the objection of Nixon, the War Power Resolution was signed. President Trump would not need Congressional approval for actions lasting less than 60 days. This law is clear, it provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." US Embassies are considered a "possession" for the duration of current contract with the host nation. Ergo, not only did President Trump make a "legal" call to strike, it was the right call to send the message that imaginary lines in the sand days are over.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp
Okay, let us stick to law, In 1973, over the obje... (show quote)



Reply
Jan 3, 2020 08:57:57   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
I like the new red line.....



Reply
Jan 3, 2020 08:58:00   #
JIM BETHEA
 
American Vet wrote:
I am not sure I agree. I suspect it would be a legal battle to determine if he had the authority to launch that strike. The War Powers Act of 73 limits the President's ability to initiate a conflict; however, this was not an "initiation" but rather a continuation of practices already in progress.


The Maniacal Dems/Socialist Party are calling these terrorists from the Iranian rogue regime.."PROTESTORS" ~ Just because Obozo had this world-renowned terrorist over to His White House, does not make him a good friend of America....They need to find some false f**g BS to complain about though because this C**p D'etat of Hillary & Obozo is having the layers of their schemes in the Ukraine pulled back more and more every day now!!

Obama’s Defense Department Official Evelyn Farkas admitted Obama was spying on the Trump campaign, t***sition team & Presidency ~ Former Asst Defense Secretary was seen working with Burisma Oil & Gas owners, as well as, the their propaganda media known as "The Atlantic" in the Urkaine...

Farkas admitted Obozo was SPYING on the Trump campaign, t***sition team & Presidency ~~ She further admitted that the Obama administration was trying to collect as much intelligence as possible on the Trump administration....

She also admitted that [the f**e] Russian narrative was to distract from Obamagate ~ Now we know that Farkas was also involved in the Ukraine and the now infamous oil and gas company, Burisma, "The Atlantic"[backed by Soros], Obozo and the Bidens!!

Reply
Page 1 of 16 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.