самая красивая фильм 2005 смотреть онлайн в хорошем
Главное меню:
Интересное
самая красивая фильм 2005 смотреть онлайн в хорошем, Can Congress get involved in the decision to attack Iran?, Legal expert defends Trump's authority to strike Iran without Congress , Israel-Iran War: Can Trump bomb Iran without asking? Capitol Hill says , Does the president need Congress to approve military actions in Iran , Does Trump Have the Authority to Strike Iran?, Trump may authorize strikes against Iran. Can he just do that?, Lawmakers move to limit Trump's war powers as Israel-Iran war escalates.
While lawmakers argue over their position in the command chain as President mulls a possible strike on Iran, one expert believes that the president is within his constitutional authority to move ahead with a bunker-busting bomb. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are embroiled in debate over where they are in the pecking order. Some argue they should have the sole authority to authorize a strike, let alone declare war, while others believe that is within Trump’s purview if he wanted to join Israel’s bombing campaign against Iran. One expert believes that the president is within his constitutional authority to move ahead with a bunker-busting bombing of Iran. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein) The predominant argument on the Hill is that the entire point of supporting Israel is to prevent the Islamic Republic from creating or acquiring a nuclear weapon. However, a legal scholar who helped to craft the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which authorized the usage of the U.S. armed forces to engage with the entities that then-President believed were behind the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack in New York City, argued that there was a difference between Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war and the president’s authority to use force abroad. "The position we took then, I think, is the same one that Trump should take now," told Fox News Digital. "As a legal matter, the president doesn't need the permission of Congress to engage in hostilities abroad. But as a political matter, it's very important for the president to go to Congress and present the united front to our enemies." Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., submitted a resolution that would require debate and a vote before any force is used against Iran. (Getty Images) The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the White House, giving lawmakers the sole power to declare war, while the president acts as the commander in chief directing the military. Nearly two centuries later, at the height of the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was born, which sought to further define those roles.Yoo agreed that the Constitution was clear that has the sole authority to declare war, which effectively changes the legal status of the country. However, he countered that "the framers did not think that language meant that the President and Congress are like the two weapons officers on a nuclear sub and have to turn the keys at the same time to use force." "The founders were very practical men, and they knew that Congress is slow to act, that Congress is a large body that deliberates, but it's the president who acts swiftly and decisively in defense of the nation," he said. Adding fuel to the debate in Washington are a pair of resolutions in the Senate from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and the House, from Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., that would require debate and a vote before any force is used against Iran. The measures are designed to put a check on Trump’s power and reaffirm Congress’ constitutional authority. President Donald Trump, left, and Rep. Thomas Massie. (WIN MCNAMEE/POOL/AFP via Getty Images | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)Yoo said that the resolutions appeared to be forms of "political opportunism" and noted that when former President Joe Biden wanted to send aid to Ukraine, when former President Barack Obama engaged abroad or when Trump authorized a drone strike to kill Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, there was no resolution demanding Congress have a say. "People on the Hill are conflating what's constitutionally necessary with what's politically expedient," Yoo said. "Two very different things."Congress’ real power over war, he said, was the power of the purse, meaning lawmakers’ ability to decide whether to fund the Pentagon and military in their appropriations process. Republicans are currently working to ram Trump’s "big, beautiful bill" through Congress and onto his desk by Independence Day. Included in the colossal bill is roughly $150 billion in funding for the . "If Congress really doesn't want us to, doesn't want Trump to, get deeper involved in the Israel-Iran war," Yoo said. "All they got to do is not fund the military.""The ironic thing is, you have people who are voting to give extra tens of billions of dollars to the Defense Department, who are then turning around and complaining that they don't have the ability to vote on war," he said. "Every time they vote for funding, they're voting to make war possible." Alex Miller is a writer for Fox News Digital covering the U.S. Senate. Related Topics More from Politics 3 mins ago 24 mins ago 42 mins ago 1 hour ago Fox News Politics Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more Fox News politics content. Arrives, As President Donald Trump decides whether the U.S. military should take direct military action against Iran, lawmakers argue Congress should have a voice in the decision. If history is a guide , Legal expert John Yoo argues President Donald Trump has constitutional authority to strike Iran on his own volition, while lawmakers debate their role in authorizing military action and declaring war..
As Israel targets Irans nuclear sites, pressure builds in Washington over whether President Trump can act without Congress. Lawmakers from both parties are invoking the War Powers Act, demanding Trump seek approval before launching strikes. But legal grey areas, old authorisations, and political divisions make the situation complex. At stake is not just the U.S. role in a spiralling Middle , In 2017, President Trump ordered missile strikes against Syria after a chemical warfare attack, and supporters including Mitch McConnell felt it was permissible under the 2002 AUMF. The Trump administration argued that the attacks were allowed under the president’s Article II powers to protect the “national security and foreign policy , As Trump weighs whether to join Israel's bombing campaign of Iran, some have questioned if the president has the authority to involve the U.S. military in this conflict., The Trump administration has said recent assessments by US intelligence agencies from earlier this year that Iran is not close to a nuclear weapon are outdated and that Iran’s close proximity to , Can Trump prevent U.S. from getting involved in Israel-Iran conflict? 12:08 Washington — Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are looking to limit President Trump's ability to order U.S. strikes , One key question is on President Trump's mind these days, his advisers say: If the U.S. joins Israel's war and drops its massive bunker busters, will they actually destroy Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear facility?.