Anonymous #1 2w

our troops are war criminals tho, the U.S. hasn’t fought a legal war in a long time

12

Anonymous #3 2w

Objectively incorrect

12

Anonymous #1 2w

If you are partaking in an illegal war, you’re literally not following what you are instructed to do in the constitution

12

Anonymous #3 2w

Article I, Section 8 states that only Congress has the power to declare war While the President DOES have limited authority to act unilaterally to repel and IMMINENT attack, there was no evidence of such a threat before the strikes The sustained nature and scale of the strikes clearly qualify as WAR rather than a limited “hostility”

11

Anonymous OP 2w

No war is illegal dude. Sure war is bad, but wars happen

-3

Anonymous #2 2w

Yes but the president has 60 days worth of operations before Congress can shut the president down. Even then, the president can extend it to 90 days

-2

Anonymous #1 2w

Tell me, who in the USA is in charge of declaring war?

12

Anonymous OP 2w

Congress. This is not legally defined as a war as of yet.

-2

Anonymous #1 2w

Oh yeah, it’s just a “special operation” that will “last until September”

7

Anonymous OP 2w

No this is not a special operation. This is definitely a war. But in terms of legality & technicality, it is not a war.

-1

Anonymous #1 2w

Yes but the War Powers Resolution (what you’re citing) is explicitly restricted to cases where a. War is formally declared, b. Specific statutory authorization from Congress, or c. A “national emergency created by attack upon the United States” or its forces Because there was no attack and no imminent threat of one per the evidence, the President’s unilateral action violates the text of the WPR

5

Anonymous #1 2w

tons of wars are illegal, that’s why we have laws surrounding the declaration of war?

4

Anonymous #1 2w

therefore the president’s strikes are unconstitutional considering Congress didn’t declare war, correct?

5

Anonymous #2 2w

Under Article II of the constitution, as commander in chief the president can take control of the military and inform Congress. You do not need any of those requirements that you listed. Many presidents have used this power.

0

Anonymous #2 2w

I don’t think you understand the power of commander in chief.

3

Anonymous #2 2w

I understand what you mean. There can definitely be illegal wars. This isn’t one of them. Precisely because this isn’t defined as a war in the legal world. But legality ≠ morality

0

Anonymous #1 2w

The Constitution explicitly grants Congress EXCLUSIVE power to declare war The commander-in-chief clause only grants the President the power to direct forces once a conflict has been authorized or in the narrow case of repelling a sudden attack on the U.S. Simply informing Congress is insufficient and does not satisfy the legal requirement for a formal declaration or a specific authorization

1

Anonymous #2 2w

Okay. So you’re right. But all of your points come AFTER the 60 day period that is granted to the president.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Congress can DECLARE the war. But the commander in chief clause gives the president the ability to utilize the military. We were in Vietnam without a declaration of war from Congress. That’s why the war powers act was created, to check the president’s abilities. The president can still conduct military action 60-90 days before requiring congressional approval through section 5(b) of the war powers act.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Read the War Powers Act again and see when the President has the power dumbass

1

Anonymous #2 2w

Bro please just screenshot this conversation and ask AI why you’re wrong I don’t know how else to help you

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Read the law yourself smartypants Notice what section (c) says…

0

Anonymous #1 2w

I don’t think you do lmfao

0

Anonymous #1 2w

I mean many legal scholars argue it is defined as a war

0

Anonymous #2 2w

Scholars do not write legislation. Legislation dictates whether something is legal or not. I do think this is a war. But defined in our legislation, this is not a war as of yet.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

yes, laws only work insofar they are enforced, U.S. presidents have been above the law for decades if not centuries

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Yes but Section 5(b) still exists does it not? You do understand that laws are extremely extensive and later sections can completely alter the law right? This is literally the piece of legislation that many previous presidents have utilized.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

That clearly states that the president can use the military in those situations. But the law is broader. 5b states the president has 60 days before the president faces congressional checks. Section 2 is the check.

0

Anonymous #2 2w

That is something we can agree on.

4

Anonymous #1 2w

Also. Section 2 is the principle section. That part isn’t enforceable legally I hate to break it to you. Principle sections only explain intent.

0