3. 3 american citizens. He ordered operations that killed both that guys kids also, the latter of which was carried out in the first month of Trump's presidency. They were 12 and 8. Both were supposedly accidents.
"Withhold funding from the military" it's actually better (or worse) than that. The US doesn't have a standing army technically speaking, it cannot constitutionally. The post war military has been continuously reauthorized twice yearly since the end of world war 2. Congress can refuse to reauthorize continuation of it and the treasury can't do anything about it.
The constitution clearly says that a declaration of war is needed, and only short periods of action that are necessary in the interim can be taken by the president absent that. Congress does not have the authority to simply pass a law invalidating that. They did it, but it is most certainly not constitutional.
> Congress does not have the authority to simply pass a law invalidating that. They did it, but it is most certainly not constitutional.
The ones that should judge if it's not constitutional just passed judgment stating that a ex-president is above the law. I think they can invalidate if a president explicitly needs declaration of war, given recent history I'd bet a lot they would find it totally constitutional.
Then the question is whether the law passed by Congress was unconstitutional, which would have nothing to do with Obama. First someone with standing would have to challenge the law and then it would make its way up through the courts. But I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would uphold it (as much as I would want it struck down along with the Patriot Act and other "war on terror" measures).
Look, the president can't do something like start a war without permission from congress. Congress basically delegated that authority to the president. If the president then uses it irresponsibly (as has happened numerous times since congress made this decision) then that's the fault of congress. They can very easily pass legislation requiring a declaration of war and take that power back if they want to.
But each party will protect their president, and you need a two-thirds to impeach. I just don't see the modern senate ever impeaching a President. We've seen today how far they will go to ignore reality and lie to make sure their leader doesn't suffer any consequences.
This is factually incorrect, the president can be prosecuted for anything, he doesn't even have to commit a crime, but there's a special process for that called impeachment. This isn't new stuff and it has been understood to work this way for a couple hundred or so years, until very recently.
Even the majority opinion doesn't agree with you. Literally the only people I've heard make this argument are Trump's lawyers in this case and in fact during the impeachment proceedings they said the exact opposite. Impeachment is a separate process and the president doesn't need to be impeached to be charged with a crime.
The impeachment clause specifically lays out that impeachment doesn't inhibit criminal prosecution for the same acts. Hell, Trump's impeachment defense was essentially that he should be criminally prosecuted instead of impeachment.
I'm the opposite. And I live in an opposite world.
Cash is the only way I pay in person. I have a prepaid card and amazon gift cards for online purchases. If I'm in a store, I have cash. If you don't take cash you don't get my business. I live in an area where many of not most businesses have a cash discount or outright don't take cards. I closed my bank account a while back.
To me, it's embarrassing that there are places that call themselves businesses that don't take money.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system.
Law as it applies to the conduct of people and organizations works this way in the Anglo common law world, yes. The constitution specifically and clearly states that the federal government is constrained in it's power to only those powers expressly outlined in it, and which branches have what powers.
Shame? Shame? People genuinely disagree with living under an administrative state comprised of unelected career bureaucrats coming and going through a revolving door to the corporations they regulate as they please. Isn't a complete remaking of the administrative state a progressive cause? I thought the goal of democracy was living in a system administered by those we elect?
This isn't the end of regulation, this is just the end of unelected agencies making up rules as they please. All this changes is that congress has to do their job.
i keep a list of installed packages and the package manager I used to install them. I don't track dependencies that I didn't manually install. This is manual, every time I type "pacman" or "yay" or even "pip" I write it down in a text file.
Other than that pacman -Syu every couple of weeks.
I'm probably going to start using paccache.
I've never had an arch system explode on me. I've had Debian systems do that. Using arch has been smooth sailing for me for the most part.
