I never implied anything about being an attorney, nor am I ducking a question–I simply pulled the bullshit card on you. I have provided “a shred.” It was done in calling you out and highlighting US Code allowing the President to take immediate action on an attack on the United States. I have made no assertions to any other statement; now you’re just throwing smoke grenades to deflect attention from your failures, and trying to redirect attention from them back to the OP.
Your posts have been based on a timeline of articles with increasing relative credibility. You sure as hell started out with a whimper, and have seemed to unquestioningly taken everything you read as Gospel.
Please illustrate to all of us where I indicated anything about the “powerlessness of Congress to do anything.” Post #15 asks a question. Tell me what position I have taken in that respect. My time has been highlighting your inconsistencies and asking you for evidence to support it. I attack your logic. And I have authority you apparently don’t–they’re called ‘facts.’
You still don’t read things, do you?
And you’re basing a debate on what things “seem to almost be”? Fissile material (now called SNM for “Special Nuclear Material”) does not belong to the military–it is manufactured by, and belongs to the DoE which deploys it to the DoD. This started with the AEA of 1946. Only the President can authorize the employment of nuclear weapons that are in the custody of the DoD, based on procedures (which are classified and I do not have access to) implemented to support 50 USC § 1541.
So what we have here is an issue where it actually is a question of Constitutional law. Congress could write an infinite number of laws intended to block the President from starting a war. And we have a clear inherent conflict in powers between “commander in chief” and “Congress declares war”.
So the deciding factor is actually how the Supreme Court would rule, and also, how could Congress technically enact this.
Could they declare the nukes, being a war in themselves, are not under control of the military chain of command but are nominally under control of Congress? And then Congress declares that specific postings - which Congress can specify as I understand it* - of officers in high command are to be given authority to retaliate under specific instructions written into law? So a first strike would require Congressional authorization through a declaration of war.
This notion that “it doesn’t matter how it started, if the world’s gone,” is highly emotional-- as well as incorrect; since a nuclear strike would (probably) not blow the Earth apart and kill everyone. Rather, nations could continue to exist and function, and their response would depend on the circumstances surrounding the attack; for example if North Korea were to lob a nuclear missile at someone just because Kim Jong Fat got a chubby from it, then clearly every nation in the world would turn against him and basically issue a Kim Jong Fat-WA.
In contrast, if Trump fired first then it might… change things.
Great, and when the bill passes one section of Congress, the enemy attacks while it’s waiting for the other to vote on it. Or just when it is proposed. The president is not the Commander in Chief so that emergency decisions can waddle through Congress. It’s why the legislature is not the executive.
Here’s how I see this: with the instruments of any nation’s power (Military, Economic, Diplomatic, or Informational), I can see a direct Russian nuclear launch against the US being under the Military scheme, where the President already has the authority to respond.
Shift gears a second, and say that ‘Atlantica’ has hosted websites that have attacked US servers, has hosted bank accounts that have funded terrorism, and knows how to leverage that power; then I can see where the Congress could draft legislation over time to authorize and declare war against ‘Atlantica’.
My point, is that it’s the speed of a military action. Can Congress pass laws to dictate the pace of instantaneous war? That’s what I’m curious about. . .
Hey, you’re confusing things again (not being snarky, just clarifying). I can manufacture a bullet, and give it to you. The bullet is an inanimate object–the Congress decides where that bullet is loaded (SSBNs, silos, etc.), and the POTUS decides when that bullet is shot at the enemy.
My question, and I think the OP’s question is, when can Congress weigh in to limit an unstable shooter of that bullet?
Tripler
I stand hard and fast on this: that bullet is inanimate, and doesn’t know right from wrong.
During the Constitutional Convention, there was a debate on whether Congress should have the power to “make war.” That power was specifically changed to “declare war” on the basis that expecting a legislature to act with alacrity in the face of an imminent threat was an unreasonable assumption.
So when you hear a certain person express an opinion that Congress can dictate how the President may respond to an imminent threat, and the basis of such an opinion is a Washington Post article, we should remind ourselves that for better or worse this issue of whether the President can act without Congress in self-defense of the country was settled conclusively centuries ago.
There is something to this point, but because so many basic facts have been twisted already, this has to be clarified. Congress does not determine what weapons go in what weapons system. Congress has no control over whether an Ohio class submarine goes on patrol with a full load out of MIRVed missiles or goes out totally empty.
Congress is the ultimate authority on how many missiles and submarines we buy and own. And treaties, made with the advice and consent of the Senate, have created lawful limits on the numbers of ICBMs and other delivery systems.
But this is not in any way a day-to-day power exercised by her legislature.
Congress has some considerable tools at its disposal - if it could muster support for a veto override Congress could direct the total elimination of all nuclear arms in the US. But when it comes to trying to put limits on how the Commander in Chief can exercise legitimate self-defense of an actual or imminent attack (as distinguished from a President starting a preventative war to neutralize a threatening country while it is still weak), then Congress cannot impinge on that constitutional responsibility of the Executive.
This is a problem. Stepping back from nuclear arms for a moment - let’s suppose that Trump orders the military to invade Canada and depose Justin Trudeau. Immediately, without preparation. Absurd? Sure. But the 101st and 82nd dutifully parachute in, a poorly organized mess of armored vehicles start crossing the border, and it’s the clusterfuck of all clusterfucks.
When Trudeau refuses an offer to surrender, cruise missile volleys are launched at Canadian military bases. Their modern, well trained military do the obvious and melt into the woods and urban areas. They do continue to wear uniforms, but they have access to modern weapons and tactics, and their IEDs can reliably kill an Abrams.
So American soldiers start dying in relatively large numbers. Not enough to make any strategic difference - the numbers and equipment disparity is too large - but enough that this disaster looks really bad. Congress is pressured to end the war as fast as possible…how can they even do it?
I guess they could freeze all funds, instructing the pentagon not to spend a penny supporting the war. But that just means that units in the cold of Canada would start running out of supplies and fuel and none of their requisitions for replacement equipment and warm winter clothing are going through. And it would directly cause more casualties, as this means they can’t get the gear needed to counter whatever it is the remaining Canadian forces are doing. (better mine detectors or more air support or thermal sensors or whatever). Politically untenable.
Practical question: Realistically, would the SecDef or his deputy ever be packing heat in the presence of POTUS? Would anyone? Considering the Secret Service ought to be protecting him, would there be a gaggle of Secret Service just hanging out in the NORAD situation room sitting on the WOPR or whatever?
Well, at least that’s out into the open, to start. . .
I think you’re trying to make a point that Congress can halt appropriations to an ongoing military operation/campaign. That is true, but knowing the political climate (with respect to the Congress) and structure, there’s nothing from POTUS from ordering an immediate seizure of ‘OBJ STANLEY CUP’ from Toronto. With the speed/pace of warfare, Congressional action is an afterthought pending an “immediate threat” to the United States. My point, and I believe the point of the OP, is the question of what can stop POTUS from initiating a military operation, be it conventional or nuclear, be it illegal (a definition for politicians), immoral (a definition for the public opinion) or ill-advised (a definition for the POTUS’ conscience).
Tripler
I am on the fence about the War Powers Resolution.
Trump taking out Canada’s leadership on a whim without there being any remotely supportable reason?
Congress acts immediately to shut down Trump under via 25 Amend. or Art. 2 s. 4 the moment it gets wind of Trump intention. Problem solved.
Failing that, any number of rational people (ranging from a White House intern to the Deputy Commander of Norad) restrain or take out Trump.
Any of more than two dozen NATO countries take out Trump and/or provide support for Canada taking out Trump.
Whichever way you cut it, in the aftermath Canada joins the nuclear club in short order. And yes, we have the knowledge and experience to do it easily.
Of course we’re not going to war against Canada, but if we did, I’m reasonably confident that “no more Canada” is a far likelier outcome than “Canada gets nukes”.
This sounds great but isn’t practical. There may be some first-strike scenarios in which a non-Trump POTUS would have to attack at once, without the long time required for Congress to do its thing.
This would be analogous to Trump threatening on Twitter to shoot down any aircraft carrying Kim Jong Un if Kim flew near American airspace, and then Congress proposing a law to force “the president to have Congressional authorization before he can order any type of aircraft shot down”…then where does that leave the Air National Guard if there were ever a future 9/11? Would President Kamala or Bernie or Warren have to convene both houses of Congress and hold a vote to get approval to shoot down a hijacked airliner heading towards the Sears Tower?
Congress’s thing doesn’t have to be, e.g., an affirmative resolution of the House and the Senate. Congress could, for example, enact legislation requiring the President to obtain the assent of a small number of leading congressional officers, or of a majority of a small number of leading congressional officers. Or you could easily come up with other possibilities.
The core suggestion is that “no one person” should have the power to launch a US first strike. That doesn’t mean that a first strike must require the collaborative action of a couple of hundred people; just more than one person.
When, as at present, one person has that power, and that one person is selected by a system capable of throwing up the likes of Donald Trump, the merit of reconsidering the wisdom of this arrangement is obvious. Sure, any restriction on the power of the President to launch a first strike might conceivably result in a situation in which the President could not launch a first strike in circumstances which you might think call for one. But not having any restriction might conceivably result in the President launching a first strike in circumstances which you might think do not call for one. It’s not obvious that the first of these risks must be avoided at all costs, no matter how much this magnifies the second risk.
These are the two arguments (there’s a third) that I’m trying to come to terms with in my head.
What I’m troubled with:
A) We have always operated under the two-man rule, with the exception of POTUS. His ‘second man’ only “verifies” the order, not “concur.” I think having a second person, say a designated member of the Congress to “concur” with the order would ease a lot of minds and relax any possibility of POTUS launching without a reality check.
B) There would be situations where an enemy could attack with no warning: the POTUS has to act now!! And if they can’t find Sen Joe Bag O’Donuts in 10 minutes, we’ve basically been caught with our pants down. You need one central command to go to nuclear war.
I can’t rectify a balance between the two. But there’s a third:
C) This may weaken us politically in the international world. For 70 years, deterrence has been the mainstay of nuclear strategy, and that depended on immediate, reliable, credible threats of annihilation to each side. If the US has to implement measures like this, it would reduce the credibility of our threat, weakening our stance in deterrence.
“C” won’t directly lead to a nuclear exchange (I think) but it will be used to gain leverage on the US in other diplomatic, economic, military, or informational areas.
