[juniperus]

well that specific scenario is its own mess of competing authorities. Theoretically, the president is commander in chief, so he controls the armed forces. But congress has the authority to make a declaration of war. But the president as commander in chief can direct troops for national security or other purposes. Military action can happen without a war being declared. It becomes a bit of a game of semantics because the argument is that war is different than military action, then the legal interpretations of words and whatnot becomes the focus. Courts tend to not really go too deep into this issue, I suppose. It's something of a gray area. So the counterpoint is that the law wasn't ignored, it was interpreted differently, because of this concept that military action isn't necessarily war. Courts usually will spell out these interpretations more clearly and refine the law, but when it comes to war, I think they don't want to litigate that too quickly.

[Tadpole9181]

Oh good God, I can't listen to this intellectual rot a single second longer.

This is not a gray area unless you're intentionally pretending to be an idiot to steal power.

Congress is the only branch allowed to declare war. Taking targeted military actions against another country repeatedly on their own soil with no provocation is not a "special military action" it's a fucking war.

It's not funny or coy or clever to pretend otherwise. The intent is abundantly clear and it is abundantly clear it is being violated.

[AnimalMuppet]

All right, let's say that the current war isn't legal, and neither was Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya. It's not what the Constitution says, but it's been that way for a long time, across multiple presidents of both parties.

The current setup has gone from "only Congress can declare war, requiring a majority of Congress" to "Congress has to pass a War Powers resolution to stop the president from going to war, with enough of a majority that they can override a presidential veto". That is a massively different standard, and was done without amending the Constitution.

So I agree with you. Just don't try to make this something special to Trump, because it's not.

[Tadpole9181]

I got "rated limited" by HN after 2 whole comments. Rediculous.

Anyway, I agree with you fully. And I firmly believe the world would be a better place had we actually weighed each of those conflicts and voted to officially declare war or not. Those presidents knew what they were doing and should be tried for it.

Just like Trump should be today.

He's not special, but I'm not sure I can bring LBJ or Nixon back from the dead and stop the Vietnam War. Meanwhile this is an active conflict that can be stopped now.

Though I would argue that, yes, this time is different. At least those pretended to have a justification.