4 ms·

I think the spirit of the TOS of humanity (e.g. Article II paragraph 4 of the UN Charter) would banish offensive war and the threat of war. These threats are _w

I think the spirit of the TOS of humanity (e.g. Article II paragraph 4 of the UN Charter) would banish offensive war and the threat of war. These threats are _worse_ coming from the president. His being the president doesn't make these things more allowable, only our deference to hierarchy does. Mere legalism is failing us, let alone the spirits of legalism. I'm not happy about it.

tertius 9y ago
> His being the president doesn't make these things more allowable, only our deference to hierarchy does. You mean the constitution right?
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  The constitution makes him the commander in chief and delegates war authority to congress. The AUMF signed after 9/11 was poorly drafted, contained no expiration, and has ceded control from congress to the executive in extraordinary ways. Nuclear authorities that allow one man to destroy the world have always been egregious since we instituted them. Nonetheless, Commander in Chief ≠ Command of Twitter. A private entity doesn't have to indulge him and such dissent is protected by the 1st amendment.
  - tertius 9y ago
    > The constitution makes him the commander in chief and delegates war authority to congress. So yes, in deference to the constitution. > Commander in Chief ≠ Command of Twitter. A private entity doesn't have to indulge him and such dissent is protected by the 1st amendment. I don't know who you're arguing with here.
    - SapphireSun 9y ago
      I think you misunderstood what I meant by allowable. He can legally act using the powers of his office, but we can shun him. It's morally abhorrent and violates international law. It's only in a very limited sense that his behavior is "allowable" even if that sense is the one that ends up mattering practically.
      - tertius 9y ago
        > He can legally act using the powers of his office, but we can shun him. Yes, he has legal rights. And they exist whether I like his actions or not. I don't have those legal rights...

tertius 9y ago

> His being the president doesn't make these things more allowable, only our deference to hierarchy does. You mean the constitution right?

SapphireSun 9y ago
The constitution makes him the commander in chief and delegates war authority to congress. The AUMF signed after 9/11 was poorly drafted, contained no expiration, and has ceded control from congress to the executive in extraordinary ways. Nuclear authorities that allow one man to destroy the world have always been egregious since we instituted them. Nonetheless, Commander in Chief ≠ Command of Twitter. A private entity doesn't have to indulge him and such dissent is protected by the 1st amendment.
- tertius 9y ago
  > The constitution makes him the commander in chief and delegates war authority to congress. So yes, in deference to the constitution. > Commander in Chief ≠ Command of Twitter. A private entity doesn't have to indulge him and such dissent is protected by the 1st amendment. I don't know who you're arguing with here.
  - SapphireSun 9y ago
    I think you misunderstood what I meant by allowable. He can legally act using the powers of his office, but we can shun him. It's morally abhorrent and violates international law. It's only in a very limited sense that his behavior is "allowable" even if that sense is the one that ends up mattering practically.
    - tertius 9y ago
      > He can legally act using the powers of his office, but we can shun him. Yes, he has legal rights. And they exist whether I like his actions or not. I don't have those legal rights...