4 ms·
> The war isn't illegal. You're going to have to specify a framework if you want to make statements about legality.
by jacquesm 8mo ago
> The war isn't illegal.
You're going to have to specify a framework if you want to make statements about legality.
- terminalshort 8mo agoUS law, which is the only relevant law to discuss the actions of the president of the US.
- bdangubic 8mo agoUnder which "law" is President allowed legally to start a War - citation needed :)
- terminalshort 8mo agoIt's been the established president since the Korean War when the US began ignoring the constitutional provision that gave congress the power to declare war. Additional examples are the Vietnam War, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq I & II, the Libyan regime change, and the current Iran conflict, and there are plenty more. The written law still states that the president does not have this power, but the actual unwritten law has been that he can. And that is the only law that matters.
- bdangubic 7mo ago> US began ignoring the constitutional provision First, not US but Presidency and second, breaking Constitution is not very legal last time I checked but I could be wrong... /s
- terminalshort 7mo agoYes, the US and not just the presidency. If it was just the presidency then he would have been impeached by congress for usurping their constitutional authority.
- bdangubic 7mo agohe was impeached (more than once cause he's a special kind of guy) and will be impeached again in 2029 :) again, you are saying something is legal that is both clearly illegal and unconstitutional. you can say "it is illegal but we have no way to enforce since our congress and senate do not work for the people but are simple extension of a given political party in power" but you can't say that it is legal
- jacquesm 8mo agoI already had you labeled as a climate denier and a troll, now I'll have to add one more item.
- terminalshort 8mo agoAdd what you like. I can't possibly take anyone who uses the term "climate denier" seriously.
- vrganj 8mo agoThe US constitution specifically calls out treaties signed by the US (such as the UN Charta) as supreme law of the land. Article VI, the "Supremacy Clause". Thus, US law, too, defers to international law. Please at least read the legal framework you're so confidently misdescribing.
- terminalshort 8mo agoIt isn't obeyed or enforced and, therefore, is not the law. I won't read it as there is no point in doing so because it is not the law.
- vrganj 8mo agoBy that incredibly circular definition, laws don't exist. All it takes is ignoring them and then they disappear! That's obviously not how things work. If you don't obey the law, you are a criminal. That's the whole point of laws.
- terminalshort 8mo agoThat's exactly correct. Laws are not a physical entity and therefore their existence is predicated entirely on collective agreement.
- vrganj 8mo agoSo if you and I agree laws don't matter, we can go rob a bank together and it's all good?
- terminalshort 7mo agoIf you and I, the president, congress, and the judiciary agree, then yes, and that's kind of the situation regarding the laws around starting a war.
- 7mo ago