The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the Senate is a rewrite of the Constitution’s War Powers clause and grants the President broad authority to deploy ground troops almost everywhere in the world, including the United States. That’s the warning being voiced by Democratic Senator Chris Murphy in response to the AUMF bill proposed by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The bill would grant the president overwhelming control over where the US forces are deployed, which is scary for two reasons. The first is the obvious threat to American citizens’ rights. If the military can be sent to an American city based on loose justifications, they could be used to impose martial law and even empower a police state that has already grown too powerful.
The second reason is the plain call back to Manifest Destiny. Americans do not want to police the world. If the European Union is too busy handling the migrant crisis and Russia has finally come to terms with the harsh economic reality that their country is on the brink of collapse, it would leave the United States to ensure the sovereignty of all democratic nations. A solution that nobody would want.
Read more on page 2.
we don’t care what you do, we stand by constitution as it was written period
we won’t let that happen and if the senate would do their job it would be nice,but sense the voters keep reelecting them they have no motivation to stop him,i pray they stop him from turning the internet to the un
TIME TO TAKE HIM OUT AND HANG HIM FOR TREASON!!!
Donald Trump For President
This bill was introduced sometime back in Jan by a republican – Mitch McConnell. How is this news now? This post is very misleading and plays into the minds of conspiracy theory nuts.
Originallly:
“It wouldn’t put any limits on the duration, geography or use of U.S. ground combat troops in the war, or on the means by which the U.S. military could act. It also would keep in place a broad AUMF from 2001 that never expired and that allows the president to take military action against anyone, anywhere, connected to the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks.”
President Bush issued an AUMF in 2001 to fight terrorism after 9/11 and Mitch was a little misguided in his attempts to extend the powers of the AUMF from bush. Neither the dems or the reps are happy with this, including Obama.
“Nobody, including Obama, is particularly comfortable with using a 14-year-old authorization for a new war. The problem is, Democrats and Republicans disagree on how restrictive a new authorization should be, and GOP leaders haven’t made debating the issue a priority. So, nothing has moved.”
We have been using an AUMF since 2001, so this is nothing new and it has nothing to do with an “NWO”. Both the GOP and the DNC agree that presidents need something like this in place. However, they are at a standstill because republicans want it to be binding (where the president would be bound to us and AUMF) while the dems want it to be flexible, in that the president won’t be required to us an AUMF.
This bill was introduced sometime back in Jan by a REPUBLICAN, Mitch McConnell. How is this news now? This post is very misleading and plays into the minds of conspiracy theory nuts.
Originallly:
“It wouldn’t put any limits on the duration, geography or use of U.S. ground combat troops in the war, or on the means by which the U.S. military could act. It also would keep in place a broad AUMF from 2001 that never expired and that allows the president to take military action against anyone, anywhere, connected to the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks.”
President Bush issued an AUMF in 2001 to fight terrorism after 9/11 and Mitch was a little misguided in his attempts to extend the powers of the AUMF from bush. Neither the dems or the reps are happy with this, including Obama.
“Nobody, including Obama, is particularly comfortable with using a 14-year-old authorization for a new war. The problem is, Democrats and Republicans disagree on how restrictive a new authorization should be, and GOP leaders haven’t made debating the issue a priority. So, nothing has moved.”
We have been using an AUMF since 2001, so this is nothing new and it has nothing to do with an “NWO”. Both the GOP and the DNC agree that presidents need something like this in place. However, they are at a standstill because republicans want it to be binding (where the president would be bound to us and AUMF) while the dems want it to be flexible, in that the president won’t be required to us an AUMF.
This bill was introduced sometime back in Jan by a REPUBLICAN, Mitch McConnell. How is this news now? This post is very misleading and plays into the minds of conspiracy theory nuts.
Originallly:
“It wouldn’t put any limits on the duration, geography or use of U.S. ground combat troops in the war, or on the means by which the U.S. military could act. It also would keep in place a broad AUMF from 2001 that never expired and that allows the president to take military action against anyone, anywhere, connected to the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks.”
President Bush issued an AUMF in 2001 to fight terrorism after 9/11 and Mitch was a little misguided in his attempts to extend the powers of the AUMF from bush. Neither the dems or the reps are happy with this, including Obama.
“Nobody, including Obama, is particularly comfortable with using a 14-year-old authorization for a new war. The problem is, Democrats and Republicans disagree on how restrictive a new authorization should be, and GOP leaders haven’t made debating the issue a priority. So, nothing has moved.”
We have been using an AUMF since 2001, so this is nothing new and it has nothing to do with an “NWO”. Both the GOP and the DNC agree that presidents need something like this in place. However, they are at a standstill because republicans want it to be binding (where the president would be bound to us and AUMF) while the dems want it to be flexible, in that the president won’t be required to us an AUMF.
This bill was introduced sometime back in Jan by a REPUBLICAN, Mitch McConnell. How is this news now? This post is very misleading and plays into the minds of conspiracy theory nuts.
Originallly:
“It wouldn’t put any limits on the duration, geography or use of U.S. ground combat troops in the war, or on the means by which the U.S. military could act. It also would keep in place a broad AUMF from 2001 that never expired and that allows the president to take military action against anyone, anywhere, connected to the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks.”
President Bush issued an AUMF in 2001 to fight terrorism after 9/11 and Mitch was a little misguided in his attempts to extend the powers of the AUMF from bush. Neither the dems or the reps are happy with this, including Obama.
“Nobody, including Obama, is particularly comfortable with using a 14-year-old authorization for a new war. The problem is, Democrats and Republicans disagree on how restrictive a new authorization should be, and GOP leaders haven’t made debating the issue a priority. So, nothing has moved.”
We have been using an AUMF since 2001, so this is nothing new and it has nothing to do with an “NWO”. Both the GOP and the DNC agree that presidents need something like this in place. However, they are at a standstill because republicans want it to be binding (where the president would be bound to us and AUMF) while the dems want it to be flexible, in that the president won’t be required to us an AUMF.
FYI this bill was introduced by a REPUBLICAN.
FYI this bill was introduced by a REPUBLICAN.