• PattyMcB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    My point being that he isn’t CURRENTLY supposed to be able to declare war. The Marines are the only branch of the military he should be able to send without a congressional declaration.

    But, since even TWO impeachments wouldn’t stick, who will have the balls to stop him? I see your point.

    • venusaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah he’s not supposed to do a lot of stuff. He farting all over the founding father’s faces.

      • Crackhappy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        And since I don’t doubt that he has limited control of his sphincter, he’s probably sharting all over George Washington. “do ya like that George?”

    • John Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Democrats could file a TRO in federal court immediately asking to pause operations & that his actions violate Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. But they almost certainly won’t, and they want you believing exactly what you do now, which is “our hands are tied, nothing we can do, send money & then we can do something, etc.” The reality is a vast majority of them are funded by AIPAC & support this, and they’ll almost certainly have a majority of ignorant or naive people repeating their lies.

      Here are some things they could try as well:

      Sponsoring a Soldier’s Habeas Corpus Petition

      Instead of lawmakers suing on their own behalf, a coalition of anti-war lawmakers could legally and financially back a Habeas Corpus petition for a U.S. service member currently deployed or ordered to participate in the Iran strikes.

      • The Strategy: The lawsuit would argue that because the war is unconstitutional and lacks congressional authorization, the soldier’s deployment is an illegal deprivation of their liberty (violating their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights).
      • Why it could work: A soldier ordered into a combat zone undeniably has “standing”—their life and liberty are directly at risk. If a group of lawmakers files amicus briefs and publicly coordinates this lawsuit, it forces a federal judge to answer whether the military’s orders are lawful. It takes the politicians out of the plaintiff’s seat and puts the actual victim of the constitutional violation in front of the judge.

      The “Mike Gravel Maneuver” (The Speech or Debate Clause)

      If the minority party knows the administration is lying about Iran posing an “imminent threat,” but the proof is highly classified, they do not need a judge or a majority to release it. They just need one brave lawmaker.

      • The Law: Under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 6), members of Congress have absolute immunity from prosecution for anything they say or read during official legislative business.
      • The Action: A single lawmaker (like a dissenting member of the Intelligence or Foreign Affairs Committees) could walk onto the floor of the House or Senate, or convene a specialized subcommittee, and read the classified intelligence proving the administration is lying straight into the public Congressional Record.
      • The Precedent: This is exactly what Senator Mike Gravel did in 1971 when he read the top-secret Pentagon Papers into the record to expose the government’s lies about the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled he could not be prosecuted.
      • The Complicity Test: If Democrats claim they have seen intelligence proving the strikes are unjustified but refuse to read it into the record because they are afraid of losing their security clearances or violating committee rules, they are prioritizing decorum over stopping a war.

      The “Senate Hold”

      The U.S. Senate runs almost entirely on something called “Unanimous Consent” to function smoothly and confirm nominees.

      • The Law: A single Senator has the power to object to unanimous consent, placing a “hold” on Senate business.
      • The Action: Just one or two anti-war Senators could publicly declare that they will place a blanket hold on every single military promotion, defense contractor confirmation, and Pentagon budgetary consent request until the administration publicly releases the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos justifying the strikes on Iran and the civilian boats.
      • Why it Works: It does not require a majority. It single-handedly grinds the Pentagon’s administrative machinery to a halt. If the minority party refuses to use this leverage to demand transparency for an unconstitutional war, “our hands are tied” is just an excuse.

      Sponsoring a Qui Tam (Whistleblower) Lawsuit

      Since minority politicians cannot sue the President directly due to “lack of standing,” they can bypass the political blockade by using corporate fraud laws against the defense industry.

      • The Law: The False Claims Act allows private citizens with insider knowledge to file a lawsuit on behalf of the government (known as a qui tam suit) against companies defrauding the taxpayers.
      • The Action: Minority lawmakers could actively solicit and legally shield a whistleblower from inside a defense contractor (like the companies manufacturing the missiles hitting Iran). The lawsuit would argue that because the military operation violates the War Powers Resolution and the Anti-Deficiency Act, the defense contractor is fulfilling an illegal contract and fraudulently billing the U.S. taxpayer.
      • Why it Works: A federal judge cannot throw this out using the “Political Question” doctrine because it is technically a corporate fraud case. It forces the court to examine whether the underlying contract (the war) is legally authorized.

      Forcing Privileged Floor Votes (The Complicity Test)

      If minority lawmakers say they are powerless because they don’t control the House, they are lying by omission. Certain laws allow any single member of Congress to force a mandatory floor vote that the majority party cannot block.

      • The Arms Export Control Act (AECA): Any senator can introduce a Joint Resolution of Disapproval to block the sale or transfer of specific weapons (like the missiles being used in Iran or Israel). Bernie Sanders used this recently regarding Gaza.
      • The War Powers “Concurrent Resolution”: Any member can introduce a resolution under Section 5(c) directing the President to remove troops engaged in unauthorized hostilities.
      • The Litmus Test: If a Democrat goes on television and says, “We must stop this,” but refuses to introduce or vote for an AECA or War Powers resolution, they are complicit. Forcing the vote is the only way to put every single member of Congress on the public record.
      • JustTesting@lemmy.hogru.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        What is this LLM slop?

        Half the stuff Trump wouldn’t care about, the other half would not really affect any current military operation. Plus most of it he’d just ignore like he did most other things, e.g. tarifs are illegal, welp, let me just use some other law to justify tarifs

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          You’ve just demonstrated my favorite excuse from Dems.

          “It’s okay that they don’t do anything because opposition is hard, and it might not work anyway, so why do anything?”

          • JustTesting@lemmy.hogru.ch
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Not a democrat or even american, so 🤷

            That’s not what I’m saying, OP asked an LLM for a legal opinion on what democrats could do. LLMs are terrible at legal questions/opinions. Of the things it says, if they were true and made legal sense, none of it would stop the current war any time soon, it’s stuff that would take years to figure out, by which time this likely has blown over for the next crisis.

            By all means, prosecute the fucker and his administration for everything and try and make his life hell. But asking an LLM for a legal opinion on what democrats could do seems like top grade cope/virtue signaling so someone can feel better going “see, there’s all these things they can do, but they don’t, so they’re in on it and bad”. when there’s enough valid reasons to think that about democrats without falling back on slop and there’s no shortage of valid criticism, nor valid actions they could take.

      • PattyMcB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        I didn’t say their hands were tied, but he shouldn’t be committing acts of war unilaterally. That was my point

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Agreed… I just don’t want people acting like there is nothing that Democrats can do right now, including cutting off funding, drafting resolutions, etc. Maybe they will do something for once, but I don’t have my hopes up. Seeing how they literally enabled the genocide in Palestine, it seems like most of them are bought & paid for.

          • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            They’re not going to do anything, not because they’re powerless, but because they’re bought off by AIPAC and support the war too, and not only that, they have a maniacal leader in charge willing to take all of the heat off of them by acting without Congress and giving them plausible deniability. It’s a dream scenario if you’re an AIPAC-bribed legislator.