russia interference, trump, collusion, etc

[Kane]

[exploited]

[JDHURF]

I've already pointed out multiple times that the Korean police action and Vietnam were the earlier examples of anomalous departures from precedence. The precedent had always been in line with the Constitutional legal statutes, with some few very noticeable anomalous departures. That is what I observed weeks ago. I then further observed that such issues completely shifted character after 9-11 and the 2001 AUMF. The passing and using of the AUMF since 2001 is a conspicuous demarcation from the preceding two centuries and several decades of well established precedent. The precedent was consistent and firm with a few obvious anomalies.

The bombing of Cambodia was part of the Vietnam war and I was the first one to point out that Vietnam was one of the earlier anomalous departures from the war powers precedent. Cambodia and Vietnam are not two separate, isolated examples. I think you may be misunderstanding my point about this. I'm not arguing that the bombing of Cambodia as part of the Vietnam war isn't a good example of the executive disruption of the war powers precedent. I explicitly argued that it was obviously an anomalous disrupture and, as such, was not an example of long standing precedent. I then pointed out that the 2001 AUMF radically shifted the issue and that the problem, while sporadic anomalous examples existed in the decades after WWII, started to become entrenched and essentially unchallenged in any substantive way.

Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, etc. are all tied to the overarching framework that, predicated upon lies and false intelligence, led to the Iraq war which was itself a departure from the AUMF itself. This is how unhinged the executive power has been allowed to become.

I don't know why you think that the only effective measures would be to abolish the President as commander in chief or to somehow implement unspecified legal punishments. I'm pretty sure you will agree that those are not serious measures. Of course they can cut funding and they can absolutely amend and/or repeal the AUMF, the latter scenario being actively pursued presently.

[Philly]

Spider, JDHURF:

There other members of this forum, and all 4 of us would really appreciate it if you either let this go or continue it in DMs.

Thanks

[JDHURF]

This can be done.

[JDHURF]

[Spider]

[NAB]

[JDHURF]

I'm just not going to correct your mistakes every single time you fashion new ones after your old ones are exposed. I see that you're no longer interested in discussing Bosnia

It's also clearly futile to endlessly repeat some elementary facts that you simply refuse to acknowledge. The formal declaration of war is only one of the three elements of the war powers clause as specified in the U.S.C. Specific statutory authorization from Congress is what has most often driven military actions, such as...in Bosnia.

Surely you must not need being told that the so-called "Indian wars" were all tied to legislation such as the Indian Removal Act. The genocide perpetrated against the native tribes was conducted by the executive, legislative and judicial branches in tandem.

Bleeding Kansas was fought by armed anti-slavery groups, John Brown and them, and slave owners and slavery supporting bandits. Federal troops were sent after the bleeding began only to maintain peace, they weren't sent to engage in battles.

Taking the three above examples I already know well (Bosnia, the "Indian wars" and bleeding Kansas) I can clearly see that you haven't even reviewed what you're pretending to be examples supporting your position. You're clearly not even bothering to give your google/wikiwarrior hunts even a glancing, first skimming over. You're dismissed.

[Spider]