Trump doesn’t need to withdraw from NATO. He just needs to give Putin additional top secret intelligence, ignore all treaties, and do whatever the fuck he wants to do. Seriously, does anyone expect anything else?
Trump can still fuck Ukraine, but now it’s harder to fuck up NATO and international relations for decades to come. Different things.
As much as I hope you are correct, I’m not going to bet that he can’t fuck with our international relations for decades to come.
“harder to”
It’s that pesky nuance thing nobody seems to be able to get these days again.
And you think giving NATO intelligence to Putin won’t screw up our relations with NATO and other nations? Because that’s what he would do if reelected. Hell, knowing Trump, he’d probably invite Putin to the swearing in, and give him Top secret materials as a goody bag when he went home.
When he’s sworn in, he’ll put his hand on the pee tapes.
Maybe, dear US citizens, don’t vote that evil clown again. Last time really stressed our good friendship.
I mean the majority of us didn’t. But yes let’s hope even less next time. Sorry for stressing our friendship random person from unknown other country, we tried to stop it
Trump can openly say he won’t ever allow US military intervention as part of NATO article 5, so even if the US remains in NATO it’s teeth are gone.
If Trump is elected, honestly we have bigger problems than backing up NATO forces. I mean, at least there are NATO forces besides the US. It would be bad, but literally everything about it would be bad for everyone everywhere.
If he regains the presidency ever again, the world as a whole is fucked, the amount of cascading chaos can not be understated.
Alternate possibility: he lets Ukraine fall, Russia, China, and/or NK are emboldened to attack NATO countries, and we have to send troops to war.
Trump invokes wartime powers and just never stops.
Or he does all that except sending the troops.
He’ll just declare war on Iran.
Ok, now pass one requiring the President to support and defend the Constitution, and to not be such an utter shithead.
I realize that second one is delusional when it comes to Trump.
My favorite part was how that was implied and held true by every fucking president.
And now we have to make shit explicit.
I mean, the President-elect must take the Oath of Office as stated in Article II, Section I , Clause 8 of the Constitution:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”.
So it is on there. But it’s really just a pinky promise between you and a higher power. Whether that be a deity, the government, society/the social contract, or whatever.
There are two problems with this:
1, president Trump did not believe in a higher power than himself. He may present as Christian or even a twice-a-year Christian, but make no doubts, he saw himself as the highest power, answerable to no one
2, the president shouldn’t be answerable to no one. But the system of checks and balances is broken by a party-before-country half of Congress and a stacked and obviously biased and hyper-political Supreme Court (that has at least one seat stolen depending on how consistent you are in your beliefs. More if you think back to Bush v Gore…which is also why I hate people spouting for third parties. If half of the Florida Nader voters held their nose and voted for Gore, there wouldn’t have even been a question. Were their virtues worth the result that came of them? I say the same for the Bernie Bros who couldn’t hold their nose for HRC).
Democrats go after civil rights constantly and with impunity. Their presidents included
Next, remove the presidential pardon power.
Keep the pardon power, but, require approval from the senate on those selected to be pardoned.
Is there a legal argument being made that the oath of office is not a binding agreement?
I feel like that would lose in court….
Trump is arguing that he swore an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the constitution, not to “support” it.
Which is hilarious since those words describe the act of supporting it
His entire existence is a fucking meme
Bon chance with that argument….
It’s only one of Trump’s primary defenses for Jan 6th lately. Where have you been?
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-oath-support-constitution-colorado-insurrection-1847482
That didn’t hold water it seems: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
So it’s a non issue.
oof, finally good news on that front!
Let’s see how long it lasts. Hopefully that’s the end of the Colorado battle but you never know. The best thing that could happen is him appealing to the US Supreme Court and they affirm it, making it a national decision.
Still absurd that it was even an argument in the first place. The attorneys should be penalized for wasting time with stupidity.
True enough. Wish I had confidence in the Supreme Court.
Oaths are generally not legally binding. For instance, you can not swear to tell the truth in court and perjury is still a thing. The swearing in is just a formality.
Oaths are, as always, dependent upon the character of the person taking them and social consequences about breaking them.
Is there case law on that? I’m not aware of anyone that testifies before a court without being sworn in?
What I’m saying is not that you can opt not to swear in, but that there are ways to commit perjury even if you have not.
In my experience, anyone who takes the stand is sworn in, it’s just a formality that is not the reason for perjury.
Sort of an “all dogs have 4 legs but not everything with 4 legs is a dog” thing.
I should hold off on posting until I make more sense
Edit: actually I’m full of shit, and you generally get charged with something lesser than perjury if you’re not under oath.
If you give a false statement but you are not under oath or make false claims without knowledge or malice, your statement will likely not reach the level of perjury charges
Well that’s it for me for a while lol
This site disagrees with you:
Only witnesses who make false statements under oath can be convicted of perjury, and they must also have intentionally misled the court. If you give a false statement but you are not under oath or make false claims without knowledge or malice, your statement will likely not reach the level of perjury charges.
Yeah I edited that in. Did not realize it was a lesser charge. Time to sit the next few plays out.
Hadn’t thought about this. If you refuse to swear an oath in court, can they find you in contempt? Or they just like ok, well we tried, let’s move on.
Pretty sure refusal would result in a contempt charge, because it turns out it is a major factor in actually charging you with perjury
So then not what you said earlier?
Yes, hence my edit.
An actual proactive decision? Instead of relying on nebulous gentleman’s agreements? How novel.
And yet the president could still refuse to answer an article 5 declaration and leave in all but name.
Until impeachment is actually on the table there’s no law restricting the presidency that has any teeth
Call me a conspiracy theorist but if there’s an article 5 declaration and any President decides to stand in the way of the MIC from cranking on full profit mode, they’d get Kennedy’d.
For reasons having nothing to do with my personal safety I must disagree with you. The Defense Industrytm is the most moral industry in America!
So. The Republican majority think Trump could (will?) win and want to keep him from burning the house down, even working with Dems to get this done, but all without actually being seen as having taken a direct stand against him or visibly not supporting his reelection/coup/whatthefuckever.
Fucking cowards.
How useful if a dictator gets in. I’m sure they’ll care. How about voting rights bills? Stopping gerrymandering? No?
I don’t think the President has a role in gerrymandering.
No, but the party backing one of the inevitable candidates does.
Got bad news for you, Dems gerrymander just as much in the northern states, :/ the reason it’s not stopped is because it benefits both parties.
Gee I wonder why they have no choice but to take advantage of the thing Republicans already take advantage of legally to win. Could it be because Republicans caused gerrymandering to be legal in the first place and fought for it every step of the way?
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/07/19/gerrymandering-republicans-redmap
You need to read your own link btw. Gerrymandering started before there was even a split between the two parties. It’s been going on for over a century and isn’t going to go away. Acting like the Dems only do it because the repubs do is naive.
This is exactly right - of course, there may be some gerrymandering forced in, but often times a consensus is reached by sitting legislators locally to gerrymander local districts because it can ensure the political longevity of both the left/right candidates who do it.
Amazing to me that we would have “progressives” downvoting this comment - as if there’s real faith that the Democrat party has their best interests at heart, lol.
Yea I don’t know why people are down voting it. Gerrymandering has been going on for over a century, and it’s not going to stop, because both parties benefit from it. It’s odd how often progressives will defend Dems, and as you said… they don’t have their best interests in mind at all, like hold them to a higher standard. Just saying “well at least they’re not Republicans” is not a good thing.
You say gerrymander, I say “reverse republican gerrymandering”, but the result is an election that doesn’t have districts that look like ducks.
km??um ivmfmmm…,…
....…,
…d in jmm
I absolutely hate The Hill simply because they cannot be bothered to take 2 seconds to link to the damn bills they talk about in their articles.
For all I know they could talk about Congress passing a bill ratifying that the color of the sky shall be considered Red and the reader has no idea if it is true or not.
The bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2670/text
Look for Sec. 1250A. Limitation on withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
SEC. 1250A. LIMITATION ON WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.
(a) OPPOSITION OF CONGRESS TO SUSPENSION, TERMINATION, DENUNCIATION, OR WITHDRAWAL FROM NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY.— The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Wash- ington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(b) LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.—No funds authorized or appropriated by any Act may be used to support, directly or indirectly, any decision on the part of any United States Govern- ment official to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
© NOTIFICATION OF TREATY ACTION.—
(1) CONSULTATION.—Prior to the notification described in paragraph (2), the President shall consult with the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in relation to any initiative to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty.
(2) NOTIFICATION.—The President shall notify the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in writing of any deliberation or decision to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, as soon as possible but in no event later than 180 days prior to taking such action.
(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize, imply, or otherwise indicate that the Presi- dent may suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw from any treaty to which the Senate has provided its advice and consent without the advice and consent of the Senate to such act or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(e) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this section or the application of such provision is held by a Federal court to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this subtitle and the application of such provisions to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this subtitle, the terms ‘‘withdrawal’’, ‘‘denunciation’’, ‘‘suspension’’, and ‘‘termination’’ have the meaning given the terms in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded at Vienna May 23, 1969.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2670/text
Thanks very much for sharing this language.
I do not think it will be effective. This has been done before in exactly the same way and that failed.
Congress thinks way too highly of themselves and their powers smh! I don’t think it will be effective either.
Good.
But as a point of contention, dictators, emperors, supreme leaders, etc. are not presidents. Just saying.
Dictators, emperors, supreme leaders, etc. do not hold themselves to the law in the first place, so should we just never bother passing any?
Certainly not. Just pointing out that it may be an empty gesture from Republicans.
I’m happy to let them keep making such empty gestures. Especially since Trump’s win is not a foregone conclusion.
Good point
If one were able to assume any of those titles, wording of laws wouldn’t matter, they would be able to replace the laws however they saw fit. So trying to phrase that would be redundant yet pointless.
The laws aren’t written in any way that facilitates that for obvious reasons. It still requires a lot more effort (and to more directly be a dictator) if the system currently in place does not allow for something without force.
But like it’s just saying the obvious. If the laws in place block it, he would need to hope the next coup actually works.
The fact that this is even something Congress needed to consider doing is crazy.
The main purpose of the US military is deterrence. Soldiers and tanks and aircraft carriers do their job by being so intimidating that no one starts a major war. (They’re still useful if a war does start, but winning a war is far worse than not having to fight it in the first place.) A major component of this system of deterrence is the presentation of an indivisible united front between us and our allies. Simply having the President publicly question the dedication of the USA to NATO did billions of dollars worth of damage - compare how much better it would be to have had Trump keep his mouth shut than it would be to build an extra carrier battle group. (Arguments about who pays how much can be held in secret.)
The fun part is that they can pass a law to prevent Trump from officially leaving NATO, but they can’t pass a law to make him actually honor the alliance if a war does start, and they especially can’t pass a law to make the enemies of the USA believe that he would honor the alliance.
I was under the impression that while one function of the the US military is being a deterrence army, they also regularly invade countries around the globe in wars of aggression?
Eh, sorta. As far as full scale invasion is concerned, off the top of my head, it’s happened three times since WWII (Iraq twice, Afghanistan once). There are many other cases that aren’t really invasions, but are terrible in their own right.
Korea and Vietnam were both cases of the country’s government being split, and one of the factions asked the US to intervene. Then there are a hundred conflicts all over where the US was involved in some capacity–usually material support or training, but not combat. Those smaller support actions are where the really bad stuff is. Most of South America was completely fucked up in that way. The US could pretend not to be involved while one faction of locals commits crimes against humanity.
It’s not to deter countries from starting wars, it’s to deter countries from stopping using the dollar as a reserve currency. The wars of aggression come with that.
Cries in Gaddafi
Congress will declare the state of war which is their constitutional power to do so.
He’s still the commander of the military. Unless they actually impeach him there is no check.
Trump doesn’t follow laws and has and continues to be at war with the constitution and rule of law. Nothing congress does matters. Especially when it’s filled with brown shirt traitors.
… Then what’s the point of this law if Congress is full of brown shirt “traitors” who will give congressional approval for withdrawal from NATO?
The term “political theater” comes to mind.
removed by mod
Finally some good news.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden.
The provision underscores Congress’s commitment to the NATO alliance that was a target of former President Trump’s ire during his term in office.
“NATO has held strong in response to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s war in Ukraine and rising challenges around the world,” Kaine said in a statement.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) leaves a Senate Republican Conference luncheon where they heard from Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)
Biden has invested deeply in the NATO alliance during his term, committing more troops and military resources to Europe as a show of force against Putin’s war.
The former president’s advocates say his tough talk and criticisms of the alliance served to inspire member-states to fulfill their obligations to reach 2 percent of defense spending, lightening the burden on the U.S.
The original article contains 376 words, the summary contains 160 words. Saved 57%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I appreciate people posting content which disproves the idea that the GOP is monolithic.
Approval from Senate is 50%?
Senate 87 yes -13 no
House 310 yes -118 no
Is that the votes for this act?
I mean: it says the president removing the US from NATO now requires Senate approval or congressal act. So what % of Senate is required for Senate approval? 50%?
Yes, those were the votes for this act.
As for leaving NATO, the president either needs 2/3 of the Senate to OK it, or the house and senate need to pass an act, which would be a simple majority for both bodies.
Thanks for the info. If R’s ever take control of everything, then they could theoretically do it, but at least this makes it much more difficult.
It’s some comfort at least. It’s deliberately made so that no one is going to have that sort of Senate majority of bit lickers.
It’s somewhat concerning since we know if Trump gets in, he will get in with house and Senate boot lickers. However, Congress is able to bureaucrat their way out of actually putting something up to vote even if they all want to claim they would, hypothetically, support a bill in public. Just like when Republicans had all the theoretical support they would have needed to kill Obamacare, and yet somehow dodged trying to do so for two years (after previously putting it up for a vote every few weeks when they knew it would fail).
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Come on, what’s the NATO to the USA?
