3 ms·
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 expiratio
by 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 agoI 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...