Read the War Powers Resolution: §1541(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement…
-
-
Show this thread
-
…in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Show this thread -
Read (1), (2), and (3) carefully. Is there any suggestion that the president can take *offensive* military action without congressional approval? No. The only situation in which he may dispense with congressional approval is to *defend* against a sudden attack on our country.
Show this thread -
Why then do some people say the president always has 60-90 days before needing approval? It probably stems, in most cases, from a misreading of (or failure to read in part or entirety) the War Powers Resolution.
Show this thread -
The War Powers Resolution does provide a 60-90 day timeline, but that’s to account for situations implicating §1541(c)(3), “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
Show this thread -
If there is an attack on our country, we expect the president to respond swiftly. The War Powers Resolution therefore gives him 60-90 days. The Framers of the Constitution agreed that the president should have the “power to repel sudden attacks” without congressional approval.
Show this thread -
The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval (nor could it). It instead checks the president when he enters our Armed Forces into hostilities for constitutionally permissible reasons.
Show this thread -
You can read the War Powers Resolution here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1541 ….
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If he breaks the law, impeach him! Set a new precedent regarding the WPR (or A).
-
Yes! I believe that for Repubs to regain their "party of morality" appearance, they need to call out and cut out bad behavior.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Tell ‘em Justin.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Since when do we have a constitutional clause that says: The president can do whatever the Fuc he wants as long as he can say, “Obama did it!!?” I’m not finding that anywhere. My friends 4y/o says it’s true bc Tommy’s Mom said so, but I’m not Tommy’s Mom so I’d like proof.
-


...I'm in love with u - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm running for Congress and will work with you effectively & tirelessly Congressman
@justinamash &@RepThomasMassie to restore liberty, hold government accountable to the Constitution, & cut reckless spending!#CastaldoForCongress -
this type of campaigning is pathetic and shows your true colors, because what I feel you are saying in this tweet is.. help me win and I'll be your bitch girl and vote how you want me to regardless of what the people in my district want..
-
“This” isn’t a type of campaigning or a signal that I would get my cues from them. I share liberty, Constitutional, fiscally responsible, non-interventionist principles in common with them and so I am expressing that. Amash, Massie, Tulsi Gabbard, Jim Jordan... I respect them.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I hope Trump is ready to send Ivanka and both of his sons to war.....my family is sitting this one out.....I don't consent to this madness....pic.twitter.com/ZZaglMgB70
- 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.
