Personally I don't have a problem with the strikes. Unfortunately the verification process got bogged down at the UN.
The strikes weren't intended to end the conflict in Syria they were intended to diminsh Assads' chemical weapons capabilities. Additional sanctions are coming for Russia, on Monday I believe.
Mission Accomplished
The Constitutions' Commander in Cheif Clause Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 allows for this type of strike. The international community including the USA and Assad signed a treaty correct? The Chemical Weapons Convention. The US has obligations, as do other nations, to the treaty. The Commander in Cheif Clause allows for this type of strike when enforcing treaty obligations that protect Americans' and/or American interests.
Well agree to disagree on this one.
The Constitutions' Commander in Cheif Clause Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 allows for this type of strike. The international community including the USA and Assad signed a treaty correct? The Chemical Weapons Convention. The US has obligations, as do other nations, to the treaty. The Commander in Cheif Clause allows for this type of strike when enforcing treaty obligations that protect Americans' and/or American interests.
....
The Constitutions' Commander in Cheif Clause Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 allows for this type of strike. The international community including the USA and Assad signed a treaty correct? The Chemical Weapons Convention. The US has obligations, as do other nations, to the treaty. The Commander in Cheif Clause allows for this type of strike when enforcing treaty obligations that protect Americans' and/or American interests.
Well agree to disagree on this one.
"By the way, Obama (PBUH) consulted congress about Syria so as not to violate the Constitution."
Obama (PBUH) was the first US President to enact a law.
"Congress shall solely enact laws."
The LAW to grant illegal aliens a stay in deportation, eligibility for employment and benefits, was also a double violation of the Constitution, in that it was a LAW in violation of laws already on the books (passed by Congress) regarding immigration and border security.
Noone can defend this. It sets a DANGEROUS precedent for future Presidents to BYPASS CONGRESS and enact laws.
"The LAW to grant illegal aliens a stay in deportation, eligibility for employment and benefits, was also a double violation of the Constitution, in that it was a LAW in violation of laws already on the books (passed by Congress) regarding immigration and border security. "
Darkhorse12 is right. For decades, common for many presidents and immigration authorities to have wide discretion over immigration policy because of limited resources and impracticality of deporting everyone. US constitution and congress allow the executive branch broad authority in the administration and enforcement of immigration laws. So temporary deferral in deportation of illegal immigrants is constitutional according to letter signed by 105 law professors. Every legal challenge to DACA has failed because DACA is constitutional according to American civil liberty union.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
