.@justinamash What about this legal justification?https://youtu.be/XkNvKdQrE6Q
-
-
-
It's bogus. International law and treaties cannot override constitutional requirements, and our troops were not attacked or endangered.
-
.
@justinamash I normally support your positions on most things, but not on this one. We have the right to act per existing agreements. -
No, we don't. President and Senate cannot bypass House with respect to war powers simply by adopting a treaty. Absolutely unconstitutional.
-
.
@justinamash If we have to seek congressional approval to ACT ON EXISTING AGREEMENTS, then the agreements have NO TEETH. They are USELESS. -
These agreements are not self-executing. They require further congresional action because Constitution requires full congressional approval.
-
.
@justinamash Only for all-out WAR. The US is NOT going to war! Requiring congressional approval to ACT per agreement, VOIDS that agreement. -
I'm pretty confident that if Russian missiles destroyed a U.S. air base, you wouldn't be arguing that it's not war.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
That's like your opinion man.. especially given that he just did without approval.
-
That's not my opinion; it's a statute.
-
It's just your opinion on how that statute is being interpreted.. a politician's legal opinion is never biased of course
-
The language isn't complicated. The United States wasn't attacked, so the situation meets none of the criteria for the president to strike.
-
Soooo trump broke the law & you're going to push to prosecute him? Or just venting on twitter like the rest of us?
-
The only remedy to the president ignoring statute like this is impeachment. Which I'm sure Rep Amash is filing for tomorrow. Right?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You can search for more, but here's a start.https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/850813915269406720 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What about the 2001 AUMF? Does that apply? Seriously asking.
-
No. Syria did not attack us on 9/11.
-
Iraq didn't either. Wasn't that same AUMF used in '03?
-
No, that was a separate AUMF. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.