Dem Wants To Block Trump From Nuclear First Strike Without Congressional Permission

[mystery-ak]

Dem Wants To Block Trump From Nuclear First Strike Without Congressional Permission

Kerry Picket
Reporter
10:26 AM 01/03/2018

California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu told his Twitter followers Tuesday night to support his legislation to prevent President Trump from launching a nuclear first strike without congressional authorization.

The bill, known as the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017, (H.R. 669), had been proposed by Lieu and was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs last January, just four days after Trump was sworn into office.

According to the bill summary, the legislation would bar the president from using the military “to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a congressional declaration of war expressly authorizing such strike.”

more
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/03/adem-wants-to-block-trump-from-nuclear-first-strike-without-congressional-permissiondem-urges-support-for-legislation-to-keep-trump-from-button-without-congressional-permission/

[Fantom]

Meh.. as long as it is over within 90 days it is just another " Kinetic military action".

Bombs away.

[Frank Cannon]

California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu told his Twitter followers Tuesday night to support his legislation.....

....that is a grandstanding move and that has no possibility of passage.

[edpc]

Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017


Can’t we just call it A-bombacare?

Think about how dumb this is.  Hey, let’s convene congress to authorize a nuclear first strike.  They’ll never see it coming!

[WingNot]

@edpc Amen
Congress has mastered the art of making nothing happen very slowly.

[Chosen Daughter]

Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017


Can’t we just call it A-bombacare?

Think about how dumb this is.  Hey, let’s convene congress to authorize a nuclear first strike.  They’ll never see it coming!

Might as well not have them.  We would all be glass.

[Hoodat]

Yet another Democrat who does not believe in the Constitution.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Gotta love these people.

It's not just that nobody's home.

The lights aren't even on.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Can't happen.

Congress has no sway over the Executive's role as Commander in Chief.

[WingNot]

Gotta love these people.

It's not just that nobody's home.

The lights aren't even on.

The Edison (That would be an incandescent to the liberal tree huggers who effectively banned it)  bulb burnt out!

[txradioguy]

Can't happen.

Congress has no sway over the Executive's role as Commander in Chief.

Until there is either a Dem controlled Congress or another Obama style radical in the WH you're right...this is a test balloon for the Libs to see how it goes over with the people...it won't be the last time or the only effort made to wrest control from the Executive branch over something the Legislative branch clearly has no authority on.

This is just the first salvo.

[Suppressed]

Congress has no sway over the Executive's role as Commander in Chief.

The Executive has no sway over the Congress' role of declaring war.

[Suppressed]

Yet another Democrat who does not believe in the Constitution.

What...like Article I, Section 8, Clause 11?

[Hoodat]

What...like Article I, Section 8, Clause 11?

Nice try.  Care to explain how the use of nuclear weapons falls in the category of war declarations, letters of marque or reprisal, or captures on land or water?

Here is the part you should have read:


Article II, Sec 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States

Sounds to me like you don't believe in the Constitution either.

(If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck .  .  .)

[Jazzhead]

The Executive has no sway over the Congress' role of declaring war.

True, except that Congress has abdicated such responsibility for decades now.   So, in that vacuum, the Executive has to do what must be done to address the reality of conflicts around the world.   

[Hoodat]

True, except that Congress has abdicated such responsibility for decades now.   So, in that vacuum, the Executive has to do what must be done to address the reality of conflicts around the world.   

It should also be pointed out that the first strike threat has been an instrumental part of American foreign policy since 1945.

As for the Constitution, we are not discussing war declarations here.  Strawman.

[Emjay]

Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017


Can’t we just call it A-bombacare?

Think about how dumb this is.  Hey, let’s convene congress to authorize a nuclear first strike.  They’ll never see it coming!

That's a good one!  A-bombacare.

[Emjay]

Until there is either a Dem controlled Congress or another Obama style radical in the WH you're right...this is a test balloon for the Libs to see how it goes over with the people...it won't be the last time or the only effort made to wrest control from the Executive branch over something the Legislative branch clearly has no authority on.

This is just the first salvo.

Yep!  But the socialists plan ahead.  They won't be discouraged if this fails ... they'll just keep trying.

[txradioguy]

Yep!  But the socialists plan ahead.  They won't be discouraged if this fails ... they'll just keep trying.

While people will read this and laugh it off and it will go down in flames in Congress...the Libs will simply regroup and continue to quietly march forward.  People will think it's a dead issue when the measure fails on the floor and move on.

Meanwhile...

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

The Executive has no sway over the Congress' role of declaring war.

OK. And how many Police Actions have we fought since 1945?

And how many of those Police Actions have we Won since 1945?

For that matter, how many of Anything have we Won since the War Dept became the Dept of Defense?

Except for Grenada we haven't Won Jack since WWII.

[Suppressed]

Nice try.  Care to explain how the use of nuclear weapons falls in the category of war declarations, letters of marque or reprisal, or captures on land or water?

Here is the part you should have read:


Article II, Sec 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States

Sounds to me like you don't believe in the Constitution either.

(If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck .  .  .)

I guess you missed the word "weapon". 

A commander in chief doesn't mean authorization to just shoot at anyone.  It's Congress' role to determine who may be shot at.

Maybe it needs to be updated, to account for modern timeframes, but then let's update it...not just ignore it.

[Suppressed]

Except for Grenada we haven't Won Jack since WWII.

Noriega would disagree.


Just because we've engaged in unconstitutional actions doesn't mean it's constitutional.

[txradioguy]

Noriega would disagree.

So would Saddam.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

So would Saddam.

Read my post again.

It says nothing about Regime Change or Toppling Despots.

Then get back to me after we've Won Iraq or the War on Drugs from SA.

[Hoodat]

I guess you missed the word "weapon". 

A commander in chief doesn't mean authorization to just shoot at anyone.

So according to you, Commander-in-Chief doesn't get to command.

How do you feel about Jefferson firing on the Barbary States without Congress declaring war?  Or Lincoln invading Virginia without Congress declaring war?  Or Wilson invading Mexico without a declaration of war?  Or FDR firing on the French without a declaration of war?

In each of these cases, the President was acting as the commander-in-chief of the military forces, which is his Constitutional duty.  And in no way shape or form is that duty rendered void without such Congressional action.  Our founding fathers never intended for a President to be denied his Constitutional authority because of a weak vacillating Legislature.