authorization of the long-range weapons constitutes an unconstitutional act of war

[CornOffTheCob]

The War Powers Clause
The U.S. Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war. This clause was designed to prevent any single individual, including the President, from unilaterally involving the nation in armed conflict. The framers of the Constitution intended to ensure that the decision to go to war would be a collective one, reflecting the will of the people through their elected representatives.

Presidential Authority
While the President, as Commander in Chief, has the authority to direct the military and respond to immediate threats, this power is not unlimited. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 further clarifies that the President can only introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities under three conditions:

A declaration of war by Congress.

Specific statutory authorization.

A national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories, or its armed forces.

Biden's Authorization
President Biden's decision to authorize Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range missiles to strike inside Russia represents a significant escalation in the conflict3. Critics argue that this move effectively involves the U.S. in direct hostilities against Russia, a nuclear-armed state, without a formal declaration of war or specific statutory authorization from Congress5.

Constitutional Concerns
Lack of Congressional Approval: By authorizing the use of long-range weapons, Biden is arguably bypassing Congress's constitutional authority to declare war. This sets a dangerous precedent where the executive branch can engage in acts of war without legislative oversight.

Escalation of Conflict: The use of long-range missiles to strike deep into Russian territory could be seen as an act of war, potentially provoking a severe response from Russia. This escalation risks drawing the U.S. into a broader conflict, which should require Congressional debate and approval.

War Powers Resolution: The War Powers Resolution was enacted to prevent exactly this kind of unilateral military action. By not seeking Congressional approval, Biden's actions could be viewed as a violation of this resolution.

Conclusion
In summary, the argument against Biden's authorization of long-range weapons for Ukraine is rooted in the constitutional requirement for Congressional approval to declare war. By bypassing Congress, the President risks overstepping his constitutional authority and escalating a conflict without the necessary legislative oversight. This move could be seen as an unconstitutional act of war, undermining the checks and balances that are fundamental to the U.S. system of government.

[TysonLPrice]

The War Powers Clause
The U.S. Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war. This clause was designed to prevent any single individual, including the President, from unilaterally involving the nation in armed conflict. The framers of the Constitution intended to ensure that the decision to go to war would be a collective one, reflecting the will of the people through their elected representatives.

Presidential Authority
While the President, as Commander in Chief, has the authority to direct the military and respond to immediate threats, this power is not unlimited. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 further clarifies that the President can only introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities under three conditions:

A declaration of war by Congress.

Specific statutory authorization.

A national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories, or its armed forces.

Biden's Authorization
President Biden's decision to authorize Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range missiles to strike inside Russia represents a significant escalation in the conflict3. Critics argue that this move effectively involves the U.S. in direct hostilities against Russia, a nuclear-armed state, without a formal declaration of war or specific statutory authorization from Congress5.

Constitutional Concerns
Lack of Congressional Approval: By authorizing the use of long-range weapons, Biden is arguably bypassing Congress's constitutional authority to declare war. This sets a dangerous precedent where the executive branch can engage in acts of war without legislative oversight.

Escalation of Conflict: The use of long-range missiles to strike deep into Russian territory could be seen as an act of war, potentially provoking a severe response from Russia. This escalation risks drawing the U.S. into a broader conflict, which should require Congressional debate and approval.

War Powers Resolution: The War Powers Resolution was enacted to prevent exactly this kind of unilateral military action. By not seeking Congressional approval, Biden's actions could be viewed as a violation of this resolution.

Conclusion
In summary, the argument against Biden's authorization of long-range weapons for Ukraine is rooted in the constitutional requirement for Congressional approval to declare war. By bypassing Congress, the President risks overstepping his constitutional authority and escalating a conflict without the necessary legislative oversight. This move could be seen as an unconstitutional act of war, undermining the checks and balances that are fundamental to the U.S. system of government.

In summary: That is absolutely nothing new, ever hear of the Viet Nam conflict? Twenty years of a war that wasn't.

[Steve R Jones]

The War Powers Clause
The U.S. Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war. This clause was designed to prevent any single individual, including the President, from unilaterally involving the nation in armed conflict. The framers of the Constitution intended to ensure that the decision to go to war would be a collective one, reflecting the will of the people through their elected representatives.

Presidential Authority
While the President, as Commander in Chief, has the authority to direct the military and respond to immediate threats, this power is not unlimited. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 further clarifies that the President can only introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities under three conditions:

A declaration of war by Congress.

Specific statutory authorization.

A national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories, or its armed forces.

Biden's Authorization
President Biden's decision to authorize Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range missiles to strike inside Russia represents a significant escalation in the conflict3. Critics argue that this move effectively involves the U.S. in direct hostilities against Russia, a nuclear-armed state, without a formal declaration of war or specific statutory authorization from Congress5.

Constitutional Concerns
Lack of Congressional Approval: By authorizing the use of long-range weapons, Biden is arguably bypassing Congress's constitutional authority to declare war. This sets a dangerous precedent where the executive branch can engage in acts of war without legislative oversight.

Escalation of Conflict: The use of long-range missiles to strike deep into Russian territory could be seen as an act of war, potentially provoking a severe response from Russia. This escalation risks drawing the U.S. into a broader conflict, which should require Congressional debate and approval.

War Powers Resolution: The War Powers Resolution was enacted to prevent exactly this kind of unilateral military action. By not seeking Congressional approval, Biden's actions could be viewed as a violation of this resolution.

Conclusion
In summary, the argument against Biden's authorization of long-range weapons for Ukraine is rooted in the constitutional requirement for Congressional approval to declare war. By bypassing Congress, the President risks overstepping his constitutional authority and escalating a conflict without the necessary legislative oversight. This move could be seen as an unconstitutional act of war, undermining the checks and balances that are fundamental to the U.S. system of government.

Since you didn't write this - you should give credit to the person that did.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The problem with this whole argument is that it requires a higher power. There is Congress, there is the president, there is the supreme court, and they are supposed to be co-equal, but they are not, and the balance of power wanders around. That's irrelevant, though. If the president takes some action that violates the constitution, it can be done with a word. Congress can't do ANYTHING that quickly, and never has been able to. The supreme court is even slower, technically. This means that the president always has tempo. Any repercussions to some action they take will be so long delayed that they won't impact him.

In that case, is there even a consequence to the president?

This has always been an issue. Presidents have to tacitly agree to play by the rules because there is no higher authority that both can impose penalties for misbehavior, and can also act swiftly enough for those penalties to matter. It would be kind of like if speeding tickets were not given to you, but were issued to any children you have after you died. Some people would drive responsibility to avoid saddling their kids with a bunch of cost. Others...would just scream, "SUCKERS!!!!" as they attempted to break the sound barrier in a school zone.

[TysonLPrice]

The problem with this whole argument is that it requires a higher power. There is Congress, there is the president, there is the supreme court, and they are supposed to be co-equal, but they are not, and the balance of power wanders around. That's irrelevant, though. If the president takes some action that violates the constitution, it can be done with a word. Congress can't do ANYTHING that quickly, and never has been able to. The supreme court is even slower, technically. This means that the president always has tempo. Any repercussions to some action they take will be so long delayed that they won't impact him.

In that case, is there even a consequence to the president?

This has always been an issue. Presidents have to tacitly agree to play by the rules because there is no higher authority that both can impose penalties for misbehavior, and can also act swiftly enough for those penalties to matter. It would be kind of like if speeding tickets were not given to you, but were issued to any children you have after you died. Some people would drive responsibility to avoid saddling their kids with a bunch of cost. Others...would just scream, "SUCKERS!!!!" as they attempted to break the sound barrier in a school zone.

So true...Trump trashed the traditional guardrails for his own benefit versus prior presidents. Does anyone hear think Trump would have resigned in the Watergate era? Decorum, respect for tradition and the country were the guardrails. Trump doesn't have the character for any of that. But he is baacckkk!

[Shaggy Hiker]

I wasn't talking so much about Trump, though he's a fine example. This is a larger issue. It's even an issue with this site.

Every 'space' has borders around it. The law codifies the borders around some civil behavior space, but other walls border other spaces. If nobody tests the walls, they don't have to exist. This goes to literal walls, as well as metaphoric walls. We need the literal walls because temperature, light, moose, and other forces of nature will disturb us if we don't put up those walls.

The thing about metaphorical walls of right and wrong is that they also don't matter if nobody tests the walls. There is no law against me jumping off my roof, but there doesn't need to be, because I'm not about to try it. Every law is about curtailing something that somebody would otherwise do. Whether they SHOULD be curtailed is a matter of debate, but irrelevant to my point.

There has to be some higher power enforcing those walls. If the zombie apocalypse hits, speed limit signs will remain, but nobody will obey them. Physics will also remain, though, so if people push the speed limit far enough, they'll die. In all cases, there is some higher power that enforces the rules.

In government, the president is the highest power. If they don't live within the rules, then the rules don't really exist anymore. At first, people will go along out of habit, but eventually, the glue of society will break down. Something else will replace it, just as physics will enforce a speed limit on you even if the law goes away. Some will like that, as they expect that they will be winners, but world history shows that most everybody will be losers in the end.

Society is not totally just or totally fair, but democratic society, following democratic norms, has resulted in the greatest standards of living ever known, with the more rule-based societies producing the greatest benefits. That all requires that the highest power in that society, act with a fair amount of self-imposed restraint.

The supreme court ruled that a president is immune from prosecution for presidential acts. Biden could have had Trump killed. The highest court in the land said that was legal, but it didn't happen, because Biden does have a considerable amount of self-imposed restraint.

Still, the point is that there is no higher power, so if the president does something against those articles as laid out by law...there is nothing to stop him except himself. No such mechanism exists.

[wes4dbt]

Still, the point is that there is no higher power, so if the president does something against those articles as laid out by law...there is nothing to stop him except himself.

Scary thought, isn't it??

[Peter Porter]

Since you didn't write this - you should give credit to the person that did.

Reads more like ChatGPT slapped it together. I wonder if jealousy is hardcoded into a simple chatbot we all know.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Scary thought, isn't it??

It's a thought that more people should think about. I've heard too many people on too many topics say, "they shouldn't be allowed to do that." Yeah? So what? Who's going to stop them? The answer to that question is the foundation of civilization.

[TysonLPrice]

"the foundation of civilization."

That struck me as odd. Not your point, just the phrase. When I think of that I come up with agriculture. We were throwing spears to catch dinner not that long ago.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, just the other day, in fact. Boy, you would not BELIEVE the fuss the other folks in the restaurant made!

[TysonLPrice]

Yeah, just the other day, in fact. Boy, you would not BELIEVE the fuss the other folks in the restaurant made!

You are not from Ohio are you?

Trump said: "In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there."

[Shaggy Hiker]

Pffft, those are too easy. You need to find a restaurant that has rats. THEN you have to work for your dinner!!

[FunkyDexter]

I wasn't talking so much about Trump, though he's a fine example. This is a larger issue. It's even an issue with this site.
...

The example of the that always jumps out to me is "International Law". I think folks often cite that with an intrinsic belief that it's bindable and enforceable where it's actually just a series of treaties that various Nations have agreed to adhere to to varying degrees. Any Nation can simply ignore them and there's really not much the international community can do. Once you get to Nations, all Politique is Real.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, that's a good example. I tend to hear it stated more about more local things, but international law is the same...only more so. People want some kind of higher authority to arbitrate, but unless God comes down from heaven and wags his finger at somebody (not just asking somebody to pull his finger, as seen on the Sistine Chapel ceiling), there just isn't that higher authority.

Or, to put it a different way, WE are the only higher authority, and if we don't take action then that is tacit approval, which is all that is needed.

[wes4dbt]

I'd say the UN is a good example. It's a great idea and works well until it don't. If a country decides not to abide by their decision, if the other countries feel the cost of forcing their decision on them is to high then nothing happens. Same with the ICC.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The UN is certainly toothless, but since there is no alternative, it is better to talk than to not talk.

[wes4dbt]

The UN is certainly toothless, but since there is no alternative, it is better to talk than to not talk.

Yeah, I've been pretty down on the UN but I will give them credit for a lot of successful humanitarian work.

[TysonLPrice]

They are useful as peace keepers...stick them in between two warring factions and in theory neither side will kill them.