Conscientious Believer

Pastor, husband, father, and thinker of thoughts. Interested in finding others who also think thoughts.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

@Rep_Stansbury @Limare64 Viable legal theory:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States”

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

George Washington’s opinion doesn’t carry the weight of precedent. Presidents and Congress disagree on the meaning of the power of declaring war. Presidents have acted on their interpretation, i.e. the president, as commander in chief, doesn’t need congressional approval to launch military strikes. Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has been able to hold any of them accountable. Therefore, the presidents who have commanded military action without congressional authorization are de facto within the scope of their constitutional powers, until such time as Congress or the Supreme Court effectively convinces them otherwise. If you think this strike was unconstitutional, your beef should be taken up with Congress or the Supreme Court. However, in my experience, most people bring up Congress’s right to declare war or the War Powers Resolution not because they are strict constitutionalists, but because they disagree with one “unconstitutional” military action in particular.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

@MattWalshBlog I disagree that it’s a bad idea, but I’m glad you’re speaking your mind.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

@ScottPresler I’m with you on passing the save act and not allowing automatic vote by mail or ballot harvesting. But I’m 100% in favor of ranked choice voting.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

More of this please!

[Senator Dave McCormick @SenMcCormickPA]

We must pass the #SAVEAmerica Act to restore confidence in our elections and ensure only U.S. citizens vote. This is a priority.

No fake filibusters. Those who oppose this 80–20 issue can come to the Senate Floor, make their case, and then let’s vote.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

@SenMcCormickPA Thank you

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah lose funding, for one. Terrorism in general loses funding. Russia, China, Cuba, and their axis of power loses a member. One less country committed to acquiring a nuclear weapon and using on us and our allies. Stabilization of a region where our troops are often in danger.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”

Congress can declare war, but the president commands the military. These two statements from the first and second articles of the constitution create a tension that has never been properly resolved. What is the president’s authority to command military action when no war has been declared? The War Powers Resolution from 1973 attempted to resolve the tension by laying out exactly under what conditions the president can command military action without a declaration of war. It was promptly vetoed and then the veto was overturned. So the law stands. However, nearly every president since the law’s passage has considered it unconstitutional, and has not acted as if he were bound by it. And zero legislators have tried to hold a president accountable for violating the law, and the Supreme Court has never weighed in. Thus, the law is de facto moot, because it is unenforceable, in addition to the fact that it is likely unconstitutional.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

@Siliconish @BraddrofliT Show me that in the constitution.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

@SKMorefield There may be some truth to that. I don’t trust Kamala Harris.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

@RepSaraJacobs There’s no illegal military action happening in Iran.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

This law has never been constitutionally tested, but has been ignored by virtually every presidential since its passage. In 52 years, zero presidents have considered themselves obligated to abide by its limit of their right to command military strikes, and zero legislators have tried to force them too, so zero supreme courts have considered its constitutionality. Until that happens, that law is essentially moot.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

He pulled out of that deal because it allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons in ten years. That’s last year. If we all abided by the Obama deal, Iran would have LEGALLY acquired nuclear weapons in 2025. It was an incredibly stupid deal. Also, it freed up billions of dollars in reduced sanctions for Iran to use funding terrorism around the world. Also it was never legally binding since the senate didn’t ratify it, and would have set a dangerous precedent of presidents obligating the country to stuff the Senste never agreed to. My point is, there are actually roughly 3.2 million reasons for Trump to pull out of that deal without appealing to something as asinine as “Trump doesn’t like Obama.”

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

They reduced nuclear enrichment to well below weapons grade for three years, yes. However, the limits they agreed to would have expired in ten years (so 2025) even if they abided by them. We’d be dealing with a nuclear powered Iran who got there with our consent. We’d have no argument for telling them not to develop nuclear weapons, because Obama tacitly agreed they could have them in 2025 if they just limited production at the time. I suppose we’ll never know with certainty what would have happened if Trump hadn’t ripped up the agreement, but the BEST case scenario is that they would have legally acquired nuclear weapons last year.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

This is an especially dumb and non nuanced take. Yes, congress has the power to declare war. But article II makes the president the commander-in-chief of the military, meaning he absolutely has the power to direct the military. This creates a tension your post ignores. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 attempts to resolve this tension, but presidents (from both parties for decades) have typically considered themselves unbound by it, because it denies them the power to direct the military as the constitution provides. This denial has never been constitutionally tested.

Meanwhile, you’re defending the most murderous, antisemitic, tyrannical, terrorist in the world, because you hate Trump. So there’s that.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

@RadioFreeTom Strong disagree. Twitter pushed certain agendas. 𝕏 allows free exchange of ideas. It’s one of the widest used news sources on the planet.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

@MattWalshBlog As a proponent of this war, I concur. It is for sure reasonable to be skeptical of a regime change war. Many conversations need to happen between Trump and congress to try to achieve the best outcome long term. Blind loyalty is always dumb.

[Conscientious Believer @Conscientious43]

@Stealx Thanks for your thoughts.