743
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
743 points (99.3% liked)
World News
32113 readers
1378 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Sorry, not American, so I found your question confusing.
From the article above:
Both parties seem to be in favour of limiting the power of the president to withdraw from NATO.
This doesn't seem to be a simple partisan issue, as this legislation has bipartisan support.
The R's support the measure because it makes electing the Orange Julias more palatable to wish wash
If you are viewing actions of the legislature strictly through a partisan lens, you dont' have enough background to approach the original concern at all.
The original idea of the US government is three branches of government. If one branch of government "bipartisananly" wants to limit another branch of government, that should be cause for alarm and ideally the congressmen involved should be censured and possibly impeached. If you want to change the powers of the president, then it's time to rewrite the constitution, not do whatever the fuck this is.
No, you are missing the entire point of three branches of government. They are there as a check and balance of power to the others. They are literally supposed to stop the other branches from overstepping.
It's been established that the president is in charge of foreign treaties. So it is congress that is overstepping here.
Article II section 2 of the constitution requires approval from the senate to ratify treaties, which is then up to the president to ratify and implement. Both branches of the government are supposed to work together to establish foreign policies, this is part of the check and balances. If you have sources interpreting article II section 2 differently I'd be curious to see.
NATO is a mutual defense treaty that is in practice enforced by US armed forces. If you accept that the President is Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, if He chooses not to respect the terms of the treaty by not deploying the armed forces, then in what way does congress get a say without grossly violating the separation of powers?
Congress has the power to declare war. The president being commander-in-chief does not mean he can do whatever he please with the U.S army as its own personal force. The president is meant to follow the constitution, even as commander. If the president ignores treaties and war declarations, I would argue the president is the one violating the separation of powers, and not congress by hypothetically enforcing the powers given to them by the constitution. By this logic, whoever controller the army should have absolute power, being commander-in-chief and all. I like how you slipped past my initial post by completely ignoring that the constitution grants congress influence over foreign policies by citing the president control over the armed forces as this unalienable right. Why have treaties then? Why have declaration of war? I think you might be slightly biased in your argument. The president was never the sole responsible for foreign policies, even though the executive branch had a lot of influence over those in recent times.
The Supreme Court has specifically made this point: The President “may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers.” Hamdan vs Rumsfeld (2006).
Just because the President is commander-in-chief does not mean he has plenary power over everything related to the military and it’s use.
Do you disapprove of the idea that SCOTUS can decide constitutionality? It's not in the constitution, so when they first did it, it was a "limit" on another branch of government.