[2/2] ... means he should still pursue a military response even if Congress votes it down, right? Seems he set himself up there for that.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner His moral imperative is to obey the Constitution.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SteveSSanders
@SteveSSanders And he said he believes he has authority to act w/o specific congressional authority.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner he can believe whatever he wants. There's no clear answer. Question is what's consistent with Art I and II.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SteveSSanders
@SteveSSanders The point is that, if his belief is what it is and he believes there's a moral imperative to act, shouldn't he act?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner the framers didn't commit war powers to the exec's personal moral assessment. Absent imminent actual threat to us, I say no.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SteveSSanders
@SteveSSanders I don't care whether you think he has authority. That is a separate debate.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner whether he has constitutional authority is the only debate that matters. Once that's settled, we can talk intl morality.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@SteveSSanders Steve, that is a totally separate debate. And we should have it. I am saying that I posed a completely different question.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.