freemymind 🇨🇭 @freemymind 🇨🇭 - 5d
#asknostr #US nostriches, is it only me not seeing it? Or do most democrats fail completly pointing out unconstitutional actions of trump, like beginning a war without congressional consent?
vinney @vinney - 5d
the US hasn't gotten congressional approval for a war since World War 2
The Daniel ⚡️ and 84 sats @daniel - 5d
Democrats excel at failing.
This does not even seem like a counter argument. It is only a fact beside. But I hope you also know what the constitution is?
And by the way it is also a false fact. Afghanistan approved Iraqu approved
Were those two war declarations that were authorized by Congress?
Yes. AUMF in Afghanistan 9/18/2001 AUMF in Iraq 10/16/2002
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html
We’ve kind of been living in a post-Constitutional era for a while. It’s just more obvious now.
those aren't war declarations, they are authorizations for force (and enable undeclared wars without congressional oversight).
right. that's my point. this isn't new. it might be worse, but it's not new
Always being at war while never technically being at war is apparently the American way.
010df - 5d
Since at least 1984.
The purpose of the constitution was already to centralize power in the federal government taking it away from the states. See the articles of confederation, which were probably left out of your school education, as historical proof. They can't even live within that.
Yes this can be that it is not the first time. But saying it is not the first time or nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqth65u2mhdrd6klxkldg6acqyek3ze6tjyacz79dmdwzuc7esue3qywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnzd96xxmmfdejhytnnda3kjctv9uq3vamnwvaz7tm9v3jkutnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qyv8wumn8ghj7enfd36x2u3wdehhxarj9emkjmn99uqzp5q9ffasjv6ywr3e7eqkmcrsqq093qmv3uz8qv32ta2gxahlvdxr9y30zq is not quiet the same. Also school shootings do not happen only once. This does not mean they do not need to be called out and the person responsible for it to be held accountable. Ind I feel in a two party system, the opposition has to bt the one to call them out. I would not know whom, when noone of the politics does it.
Your constitution lists books, that have to be censored? Never heard of this. But would defnitly be a new kind of escalation to write books into the constitution. I kind of doubt, you read it though 😂
Ideally, it would be BOTH the opposition and the currently-in-power party that would call them out.
I didn't mention anything about books or censorship. Is English a 2nd language for you? This really feels like a reply to a different post.
Ah I see. I missunderstood in the heat of the debate. But to be fair, your comment is like two independent parts in one paragraph. Where none of them have anything to do with my initial note.
Not really. You are defending the constitution as a valid limit on the us federal government. I'm saying that the entire written purpose of the constitution is to expand federal power. There was the articles of confederation before the constitution. They created a much more limited government. The constitution wasn't ratified until 1788 and didn't take effect until 1789. One of the key arguments for the constitution was to increase power over our economy. That entire bit of history is almost always forgotten in history classes.
So then it seems evident. The constitution is a generic legal documant, that forms the highest order of the laws within a country. Based on the constitution specific laws are created. When not the constitution, what gives the basis for the USA being a nation?
