3 ms·

Only Congress can change the name of a federal department, so the Department of Defense is still properly called that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_

Only Congress can change the name of a federal department, so the Department of Defense is still properly called that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14347 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14347

hdgvhicv 7mo ago
Only Congress can declare war but here we are with the department of war bombing a foreign country and capturing and assassinating foreign leaders.
- leereeves 7mo ago
  That policy changed a long time ago. The last declaration of war was June 4, 1942. After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of Presidents to conduct military action without Congressional approval, but it still allows military action for up to 60 days. Every President since then has used that power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
  - gchamonlive 7mo ago
    So the president can wage war without the Congress, but it can't officially rename the department that supports these wars autocratically. That's interesting.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - catlover76 7mo ago
      [dead]
  - nashashmi 7mo ago
    Iraq war was the last declared war. Afghanistan war was also declared.
    - mikkupikku 7mo ago
      Incorrect. The only times America has formally declared war were the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. In the case of the Barbary Wars, Vietnam War, the Iraq War and War on Terror / Afghanistan War, etc... congress approved military engagement but DID NOT issue a formal Declaration of War.
      - microtonal 7mo ago
        You mean that they were special military operations? j/k Interesting though, I never knew this.
  - happymellon 7mo ago
    Even your link doesn't say what you imply. > It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces". There was not at attack on the United States.
    - convolvatron 7mo ago
      I don't know why we're getting mired in the details here. The administration certainly isn't. We all work for trump now. Lawyers, journalists, universities, tech companies, state, local and foreign governments. Anything trump or one of his designated people wants, you need to do. If you start sputtering about your agency or your rights or your sovereignty, then expect as much shit thrown at you as the trump organization can muster. That's it, there is no legal justification. There are no fine points to argue. Obey or be punished.
      - happymellon 7mo ago
        The point is that someone claimed the law was changed, and then linked to something that didn't support the claim. Yes, Trump is ignoring the law, but you have to be aware that he is crossing the line rather than gas lighting that there wasn't a line at all.
  - input_sh 7mo ago
    That 60 day limit was ignored so frequently in the past it might as well not exist. Pretty much every attempt at stopping the president (from Clinton onwards) ends the same way: house votes on it, senate might agree with the slimmest of majority, it reaches the president's desk, president vetoes it, it goes back to the senate where it needs 2/3 majority to overthrow the veto, and it never gets that 2/3 majority.
    - badgersnake 7mo ago
      Yep, it’s a case of are they willing to impeach the president over this. And the answer is likely no. Some of the America first lot might vote against on ‘How does this help America’ grounds but I don’t see them getting near the threshold.
      - stevage 7mo ago
        What does impeachment even achieve anymore?
        badgersnake 7mo ago
        Same as it always has. The senate has to vote on whether to convict. And they always vote no.
- vibeprofessor 7mo ago
  [dead]
torginus 7mo ago
'Power is the perception of power'
almosthere 7mo ago
That part isn't sited. It is likely not true.
- enlightens 7mo ago
  The EO itself agrees with this and says that the War title is secondary. It explicitly doesn’t truly rename the department.
gchamonlive 7mo ago
However if you go to https://www.usa.gov/agencies/u-s-department-of-defense https://www.usa.gov/agencies/u-s-department-of-defense and click in the link for the https://www.defense.gov/ https://www.defense.gov/ you get redirected to https://www.war.gov/ https://www.war.gov/ So I think a bit of confusion on my part is justified.

hdgvhicv 7mo ago

Only Congress can declare war but here we are with the department of war bombing a foreign country and capturing and assassinating foreign leaders.

leereeves 7mo ago
That policy changed a long time ago. The last declaration of war was June 4, 1942. After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of Presidents to conduct military action without Congressional approval, but it still allows military action for up to 60 days. Every President since then has used that power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
- gchamonlive 7mo ago
  So the president can wage war without the Congress, but it can't officially rename the department that supports these wars autocratically. That's interesting.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - catlover76 7mo ago
    [dead]
- nashashmi 7mo ago
  Iraq war was the last declared war. Afghanistan war was also declared.
  - mikkupikku 7mo ago
    Incorrect. The only times America has formally declared war were the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. In the case of the Barbary Wars, Vietnam War, the Iraq War and War on Terror / Afghanistan War, etc... congress approved military engagement but DID NOT issue a formal Declaration of War.
    - microtonal 7mo ago
      You mean that they were special military operations? j/k Interesting though, I never knew this.
- happymellon 7mo ago
  Even your link doesn't say what you imply. > It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces". There was not at attack on the United States.
  - convolvatron 7mo ago
    I don't know why we're getting mired in the details here. The administration certainly isn't. We all work for trump now. Lawyers, journalists, universities, tech companies, state, local and foreign governments. Anything trump or one of his designated people wants, you need to do. If you start sputtering about your agency or your rights or your sovereignty, then expect as much shit thrown at you as the trump organization can muster. That's it, there is no legal justification. There are no fine points to argue. Obey or be punished.
    - happymellon 7mo ago
      The point is that someone claimed the law was changed, and then linked to something that didn't support the claim. Yes, Trump is ignoring the law, but you have to be aware that he is crossing the line rather than gas lighting that there wasn't a line at all.
- input_sh 7mo ago
  That 60 day limit was ignored so frequently in the past it might as well not exist. Pretty much every attempt at stopping the president (from Clinton onwards) ends the same way: house votes on it, senate might agree with the slimmest of majority, it reaches the president's desk, president vetoes it, it goes back to the senate where it needs 2/3 majority to overthrow the veto, and it never gets that 2/3 majority.
  - badgersnake 7mo ago
    Yep, it’s a case of are they willing to impeach the president over this. And the answer is likely no. Some of the America first lot might vote against on ‘How does this help America’ grounds but I don’t see them getting near the threshold.
    - stevage 7mo ago
      What does impeachment even achieve anymore?
      - badgersnake 7mo ago
        Same as it always has. The senate has to vote on whether to convict. And they always vote no.
vibeprofessor 7mo ago
[dead]

torginus 7mo ago

'Power is the perception of power'

almosthere 7mo ago

That part isn't sited. It is likely not true.

enlightens 7mo ago
The EO itself agrees with this and says that the War title is secondary. It explicitly doesn’t truly rename the department.

gchamonlive 7mo ago

However if you go to https://www.usa.gov/agencies/u-s-department-of-defense https://www.usa.gov/agencies/u-s-department-of-defense and click in the link for the https://www.defense.gov/ https://www.defense.gov/ you get redirected to https://www.war.gov/ https://www.war.gov/ So I think a bit of confusion on my part is justified.