Democrats work to stop nuclear strike

[struggle4progress]

... Senators Chris Murphy, Corey Booker, and Brian Schatz will introduce a bill that would give Congress alone the ability to call in a first strike after a vote, Murphy announced Wednesday.

"Trump's North Korea threats are real," Senator Murphy of Connecticut wrote on Twitter late Wednesday, stating they intend to constrain the president’s executive authority to use nuclear weapons ...

http://www.newsweek.com/democrats-work-stop-trumps-ability-launch-nuclear-strike-north-korea-693684

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Great idea and I am for it, but my concern is trump can just ALLEGE that

he thought we were being fired on and therefore it is not a first strike and by the time he does the nuking it will be too late to have a conversation about anything.

NOTHING is past what he might do, nuttin

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

2. That was always the problem with believing countries that claim to have no first strike policies.

So nobody does. Which is why every nuclear power on the planet has some type of 2nd strike capability, usually sub launched ballistic missiles. Or in Pakistan's case, constantly keeping part of their stockpile on the move in their country.

[Drahthaardogs]

3. The fact that we have to do this...

I have no words

[former9thward]

4. A completely uncontitutional bill.

I am sure they know that or at least I hope they do. A guess it is being done to create talking points.

[struggle4progress]

5. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War ...

The authority to launch a nuclear first strike is clearly a power to commit the nation to an unrestricted war, which power does not reside in the office of the president

[Lurks Often]

6. Moot point, the bill is unlikely to be passed

and if by some slim chance it does pass and Trump vetoes it, there damn sure isn't enough support in either the Senate or the House to override the veto.

As to your comment, if the bill becomes law (not a chance) in the end SCOTUS would end deciding whether or not the bill is Constitutional.

The line between Congress's ability to declare war and the Presidential authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is more of a gray area then anyone here will like to admit.

[struggle4progress]

8. This cannot possibly be a grey area: if the President had the authority to start

a global nuclear war at his whim, then he would also have the lesser-included power to start any war at his whim; and the Consitution does not recognize such a presidential power. In fact, the intent of the framers is clear, from several clauses:

first from Article I, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War"

second from Article II, section 2: "The President shall be 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" -- important because the framers did not imagine a standing army and expected the various state militia to provide the ordinary security powers, as shown

third by Article I, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

and again by the opening text of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- which exhibit the intent that state militia will ordinarily provide security

[Lurks Often]

11. Remember Korea and Vietnam

Those were wars, even if Congress did not declare war in either case. So are Iraq & Afghanistan

Under the War Powers Act, a President can order military action without Congress's initial permission, the President then has 60 days to justify it to Congress's satisfaction or cease the military action.

You can argue your hypothetical legal theory all you want, since the bill will never become law, it's a moot point.

More plainly, I think you are wrong, however nothing anyone says will ever convince you to change your mind.

[struggle4progress]

12. Political Observations (James Madison April 20, 1795)

... Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies ... In war .. the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare ...

The constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the legislature the power of declaring a state of war: it was proposed, that the executive might, in the recess of the legislature, declare the United States to be in a state of war.

The constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the legislature the power of raising armies: it was proposed, that in the recess of the legislature, the executive might, at its pleasure, raise or not raise an army of ten, fifteen, or twenty-five thousand men.

The constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the legislature the power of creating offices: it was proposed, that the executive, in the recess of the legislature, might create offices, as well as appoint officers for an army of ten, fifteen, or twenty-five thousand men.

A delegation of such powers would have struck, not only at the fabric of our constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments.

The separation of the power of declaring war, from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived, to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.

The separation of the power of raising armies, from the power of commanding them, is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them.

The separation of the power of creating offices, from that of filling them, is an essential guard against the temptation to create offices, for the sake of gratifying favorites, or multiplying dependants ...

It cannot be denied, that there may, in certain cases, be a difficulty in distinguishing the exact boundary between legislative and executive powers; but the real friend of the constitution, and of liberty, by his endeavors to lessen or avoid the difficulty, will easily be known from him who labours to encrease the obscurity, in order to remove the constitutional land-marks without notice ...

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-15-02-0423

[Lurks Often]

13. Get back to me when the bill becomes law and we'll go from there

[former9thward]

10. I guess you forgot about Article II, Section 2.

The part that says the President is commander in chief. In a nuclear war the difference between "first strike" and "second strike" would be totally blurred with minutes between the two. You may not like the Constitution but it is there.

BTW: When was the last time Congress declared War?

[BootinUp]

7. Is this constructive? Honest Q. Nt

[ProudLib72]

9. Yes and no

It is constructive in the sense that it focuses attention on the danger of letting Dotard have nuclear capability. It is not constructive in the sense that it will pass. I'm not sure what can/would be done by Rs who are also afraid of the situation. They certainly would not vote for the bill. But, again, what can we do when we are the minority? We can only raise the questions that need to be asked.