War Powers

[UCFBS]

I'm not against Congress reining in the Executive's power.

I'm actually all for that, even though I feel Trump's "Maximum Pressure" combined with going after only in-theater 'terrorist' related personnel is the right move -- and at high levels, not the 'low level' stuff. I don't like how much power Trump holds, or Obama before him, or W. before him, or Clinton before him, etc...

My only fear is that they will un-do it once there is a change-in-party, removing the whole reason for my support... that all Executives are far more limited.

 

[UCFWayne]

I'm not against Congress reining in the Executive's power.

I'm actually all for that, even though I feel Trump's "Maximum Pressure" combined with going after only in-theater 'terrorist' related personnel is the right move -- and at high levels, not the 'low level' stuff. I don't like how much power Trump holds, or Obama before him, or W. before him, or Clinton before him, etc...

My only fear is that they will un-do it once there is a change-in-party, removing the whole reason for my support... that all Executives are far more limited.

im right there with you. the dems were awfully quiet while obama dropped a bomb every 20 minutes for 8 full years. i still feel we need congress to take back more of that control.

 

[sk8knight]

I'm not against Congress reining in the Executive's power.

I'm actually all for that, even though I feel Trump's "Maximum Pressure" combined with going after only in-theater 'terrorist' related personnel is the right move -- and at high levels, not the 'low level' stuff. I don't like how much power Trump holds, or Obama before him, or W. before him, or Clinton before him, etc...

My only fear is that they will un-do it once there is a change-in-party, removing the whole reason for my support... that all Executives are far more limited.

I think that the Executive needs to be able to use force without having to wait for approval through Congress. We've seen quite clearly from both sides how an obstructionist Congress can impede the ability to perform necessary operations. We've also recently seen rhetoric and actions from some in Congress that leads you to believe that they are quite comfortable putting American lives at risk and American interests behind scoring image points against the President. The worst time to play politics is when action is necessary.

So I think the conditions and ability to use force need to be clear and unambiguous. If there's going to be an approval process, it needs to be fair, responsive, and most of all, efficient.

 

[Crazyhole]

I think that the Executive needs to be able to use force without having to wait for approval through Congress. We've seen quite clearly from both sides how an obstructionist Congress can impede the ability to perform necessary operations. We've also recently seen rhetoric and actions from some in Congress that leads you to believe that they are quite comfortable putting American lives at risk and American interests behind scoring image points against the President. The worst time to play politics is when action is necessary.

So I think the conditions and ability to use force need to be clear and unambiguous. If there's going to be an approval process, it needs to be fair, responsive, and most of all, efficient.

I agree as long as Intel says there is an imminent threat. In this case, I think that probably is true based on his history and the attack on our embassy.

I struggle a little bit with the whole principle of it all. Yes, I would like for the president to always receive consent but I have a feeling that certain members of congress would have undermined our strike. It doesn't take a stretch to think Omar would have tipped off the Iranians.

 

[UCFWayne]

im ok with presidents dealing. with immediate threats. for extended action, congress should definitely get involved.

obama/trump dealing with bin laden/soleimani is fine.
obama getting involved in libya not ok, needs congress.
syria action obama/trump not ok, needs congress