Florida Shooters Network

Can the president on his own send lethal missiles to any target of his choosing? In a word: No.

Andrew Napolitano explains:

http://www.judgenap.com/post/can-the-president-kill

Has not stopped any president since FDR. Funny how the Demorats like to cut the military till they cannot function properly, while they love to send them to fight everywhere globally that we probably don't belong.

The way they can get around his conclusion is to say the offensive is the defense. Some country starts a missile attack. Some may be stopped by anti-missile defenses, some may get through to their targets. Fearing another wave, an attack is launched. The case can be made that offense was a defense.

But, that raises another, more political, question. The CJCS indicated that a launch order from President Trump might not be followed. Suppose resident potato issued an order. Would that be followed? Of course, the probability the country is run by resident potato's handlers suggests the arrangements might be made via a back channel, making everything smoothly OK.

“When members of Congress look the other way as presidents decide against whom to wage war, they weaken the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.
In 1973, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution over President Richard Nixon's veto. This law — never ruled on by the Supreme Court — lets the president choose a target and deploy troops for two 90-day periods of time upon notice to Congress, in direct defiance of the Constitution. Biden, who as a senator was skeptical of this law, did not invoke it when he attacked in Syria and Iraq last week because he knows that the law is on shaky constitutional grounds, just as shaky as his generalized Article 2 claim.
Article 2 limits the presidential military role to commanding troops in wars that Congress has declared. When read in tandem with Article 1, it is clear that where there has been no declaration of war, there can be no use of the military. But that presumes that our public officials are faithful to the Constitution — a presumption upon which we know sadly that we cannot rely.”

REDinFL wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 9:49 am The way they can get around his conclusion is to say the offensive is the defense. Some country starts a missile attack. Some may be stopped by anti-missile defenses, some may get through to their targets. Fearing another wave, an attack is launched. The case can be made that offense was a defense.

Which was part of the rationale behind renaming the "Department of War" into the "Defense Department". Everything is optics.

Preemption is the word...had to do a research paper on it in regards to war right as the GWOT was starting...

The problem with preemptive war is self-evident to anyone with half a brain. Nuclear-armed nations run by paranoid psychopaths should never risk the lives of the rest of the world’s population. But that is exactly where we are today, and our Pentagon is literally fanning the flames.
As Napolitano said in his article, a strict adherence to the Constitution is the best practice to protect our lives and liberty here at home.
R/Griff