No. You can't legislate away the POTUS' control of the military. You can't. This is not in support of jewden but this is also not how it fucking works. Congress has very limited control over the military. Extremely limited.
Technically incorrect. the two AUMFs in question (this is how Congress gets around declaring war on countries) are old and no longer really necessary. Every AUMF is supposed to automatically sunset but not many are created that way.
(((Authorized Use of Military Force))) - or something like that, I don't care enough to relook it up because some unconstitutional law passed without question because (((9/11))) means you're technically incorrect
Come on. You're better than that. That literally outlines how I am technically correct. As well as actually. Despite being incorrect in (((practice))). e; For a further explanation and example of what I mean there was a case during (((WW2))) in which a father was arrested and sentenced for treason because his son went to Germany. He wasn't allowed any, all, or some significant set of rights and jewtus ruled it alright because muh ebil wartime necessity. I don't know specific details off the top of my head. But that may be enough to look it up. But if you seriously think because jewtus says something is constitutional, that makes it constitutional: plz.
I see where you're coming from and we're talking across each other.
Article II, section 2, names the President “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.” The latter portion of that section is what counts here. When called into the actual service...
Authorizations for the Use of Military Force are how Congress gets around it's requirement to declare war before allowing the President to send troops into battle. (Or where battle could be the result.)
All that is being done here (with the revocations) is that Congress is finally getting around to doing what it should have done already. There's nothing stopping them from issuing another one.
You're talking in practice, which I understand whereas I'm talking in actuality.
Authorizations for the Use of Military Force are how Congress gets around it's requirement to declare war...
A declaration of war is not a declaration of the use of the US military. They're legally different. The former has zero actual ramifications whereas the latter carries with it the force of the US military. So sure, congress can, and does "declare war", but that is completely irrelevant to anything of actual merit. AUMF is new but "going to war without declaring war" is not new. Congress hasn't declared war since WW2. POTUS has ALWAYS gone along with the plan. Which sets up unconstitutional precedence that allows for AUMF.
And that's what bothers me. Unconstitutional Precedence (well it was done, and it wasn't stopped, therefore we can't change it and we need to allow it again) is abhorrent legal jurisprudence, it's wrong, it's morally bankrupt, and devoid of thought.
All that is being done here (with the revocations) is that Congress is finally getting around to doing what it should have done already. There's nothing stopping them from issuing another one.
Which is good. Finally. Maybe I'm being too negative... but I don't see it as enough.
(post is archived)