Reply #29: Again, that is NOT in complaince with the War Powers Resolution

[PurityOfEssence]

A president may ONLY introduce armed forces into hostilities or where they're imminent under three conditions: after a Declaration of War by Congress, after Congressional Authorization, or if we're attacked. None of these things happened. It was illegal from the beginning. From that point, his letter to Congress was to have had specifics of forces already used, intended forces and plans, with a set of goals. It doesn't seem that this happened, either. If Congress decides to not act, he is still in violation of the law, and Congress is not obligated to act.

He did NOT hand over the reins to NATO and stop performing active strikes as you keep stating. There have been U.S. airstrikes as recently as June 18th.

The UN Participation Act allows a president to respond to an Article 42 call up without authorization of Congress ONLY if he has a special agreement in hand that has already been authorized by both houses of Congress. The UN Charter is NOT a self-actuating treaty, period. Congress was very clear about this, and that's one of the reasons the League of Nations was never joined.

The NATO Treaty is PURELY DEFENSIVE. NATO, by its own rules is only to attack in response to a member nation being attacked. NATO itself has no legal standing to be fighting this WAR; the member nations may be able to respond to the UN Resolution to do so--depending on their own laws--but not under the aegis of NATO.

You've heard all of this before, yet keep peddling the same twaddle.

For the rest of you reading this for the first time, there are ample examples of the actual documents in various threads, as well as legal opinions confirming them.

It is reckless and arrogant beyond belief what our President has done, and it endangers the party and our quasi-democracy more than people seem to understand.