Welcome to Gaia! ::

So glad to see activity in this guild again. And yes, you're absolutely right, it was completely unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, for Trump to order that strike without consulting Congress. The Constitution is NOT just a guide, it is the Supreme Law of the Land, and NO ONE, not even the President, has the authority to override it.

Unfortunately, the reality is that nearly all members of Congress, and most of the public, don't seem to know this. They only go to the Constitution when its politically convenient for them. Their favorite tactic is not to directly vilote it, however, its to twist the meaning so much that they can claim just about anything is Constitutional.

What Trump did here is a trick I believe the U.S. learned from Hitler. While only Congress can DECLARE war, the President can theoretically launch an attack WITHOUT making a formal declaration of war. I believe they figured this out when they realized Hitler never declared war on Poland, Belguim, the Netherlands, France, England, or Russia. He simply launched an invasion of those countries without making a formal declaration of war. (Although, admittedly, some of those countries may have declared war on him before he invaded, but that's beside the point.) I say this because I'm pretty sure that since WW2, the U.S. has never formally declared war before sending in the troops. Korea, Vietnam, and all the other conflicts of the 20th century, were never accompanied by a formal declaration of war. To be clear, I am NOT comparing Trump or anyone else to Hitler. I'm merely saying the U.S. may have learned the trick of UN-declared war from what he did in WW2.

I don't know if Afghanistan and Iraq were declared or not. I believe Congress did pass an Authorization to Use Military Force for Afghanistan, at least, though whether that counts as a formal Declaration of War is questionable at best. I doubt there was even that much for Iraq, an illegal war we are still semi involved in. But yeah, it was Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, but I doubt anyone will try to hold him accountable for it. The Constitution just doesn't get the respect it deserves these days. sad

Actually, I think we need to abandon Federal races, (except for President) and focus on State races instead. We need Governors and State legislators that will stand up for the the 10th amendment which states. This sin't the 2nd Amendment, whic mostly guarantees the right to a well regulated militia, and has only one line at the end about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," Which is open to loads of interpretation. Which people have that right, what does arms mean, and what constitutes infringment, are all open to debate. The 10th amendment has none of that. It makes it very clear that the Costitution has granted the Federal Goverment ALL the powers it's entitled to, and anything not found there is a States Issue. This includes healthcare, Social Security, I.D. laws, and about a million other things that rightfully belong to the States. If we elected more Libertarian Governors, (or even libertarian,) with sympathetic legislators, we could oppose the Feds on Constitutional grounds. Getting elected to Congress has so far proved to be impossible for any Libertarian, at least those who ran as such. Only the ones that run under the Republican or Democratic party labels have any real chance. And according to good old Amendment 10, which is the final amendment in the Bill of Rights, the real power lies with the States anyway.

So again, I think we shouldn't aim for anything higher than Governor, except for the Presidential Race, where we get a lot of nationwide exposure for our idea's. But it's at the State lever where we need to make our stand.