This day will live in infamy: On December 16, 2023 the US became a Vassal State of the EU

I mean through the policy of our lawmakers over the last 20-30 years it was unofficially official but this Congress decided to make it official. 247 years after the Revolution, the United States of America has ceased to exist as an independent country and we are now slaves and serfs to the European Union.

It's absolutely nauseating. First, let's take a constitutional class and revisit what the President may do.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-1-1/ALDE_00012952/

What the Congress may NOT do, is impose limitations on the same. The 'advise and consent' is not the same as direct ownership of this power, that power is vested exclusively within the executive branch.

Elements of the treaty-making process may vary depending on the treaty, but the standard process generally operates as follows:10 a member of the Executive Branch negotiates the terms of a treaty, and the President or another Executive Branch official signs the completed draft when negotiations conclude.11 Next, the President submits the treaty to the Senate.12 If two thirds of the Senators present pass a resolution of advice and consent, the process shifts back to the Executive Branch.13 At this stage, the President decides whether to make the final decision to enter the treaty on behalf of the United States.14 It is thus the President, and not the Senate, who has final responsibility for completing the treaty-making process.(Emphasis mine)15 However, the President has no obligation to ratify a Senate-approved treaty, and, in some cases, the President has declined to do so.16

The Congressional Fuhrer's on the other hand, just signed a blood oath to the European Union, forbading a US President from utilizing his diplomatic vested authority unless Congress deems it worthy, or they get some state of the union-like address.

At this point, why have a Presidency at all? It seems like Congress is prepared to take on roles that the constitution never deigned to give it. We might as well replace the WH, and instead we are governed by a Council of Governors.

Disgustingly of course, you can bet these politicians and their children will avoid the draft as they can. We should institute a new law that makes it impossible for any able-bodied man or woman to avoid service, or be imprisoned otherwise.

That'll change these warmongers real quick.

 

Do you have a link that describes what you are concerned about?

 

LOL, this is too damn funny. Should be in the humor subforum.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/congress-trump-proofs-nato-1.7059768

 

Yes, it is quite bizarre.

 

Thank you.

 

All this means that Trump cannot unilaterily withdraw us from NATO. Any withdrawal from NATO must be done by an Act of Congress, namely the Senate. This does not make us a "serf" with the EU since all Treaties that are ratified by the Senate carry equal weight under the US Constitution per Article 6 in the Supremacy Clause.

 

Diplomacy, and the execution of the laws is carried out by the executive branch. If Congress wants to override the executive branch, it might as well become the executive branch itself.

 

what did Mike Johnson just do?

 

I support that, sounds like it was bipartisan, what is whong with that?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/congress-trump-proofs-nato-1.7059768

"It says no president shall suspend, terminate, denounce or withdraw from NATO without either an act of Congress or the approval of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate."

 

The issue is that the executive branch is normally supposed to conduct foreign affairs. This is Congress encroaching on the executive branch's legal authority.

Aside from the questionable legality of this provision, it shows what kind of benedict Arnolds they are by supporting the European Union, over the United States.

 

'no president shall ... denounce ... NATO without either an act of Congress or the approval of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate'

Who with a brain thinks that's enforceable?

'this new provision remains hypothetical. There's no way of knowing if it would withstand a constitutional challenge in court, on the grounds that it usurps a president's role in foreign affairs.'

'how it would commit an anti-NATO U.S. president to act militarily in a case where NATO invoked its Article 5 mutual defence clause?'

Trump's goal was to urge NATO allies to pay their 2% commitment and he'll still have this ability due to his control over how vigorously he prosecutes a war. Right now they think that they can rely on us to do everything and essentially carry the load with their participation on the margins. If they defy his call to pay their fair share, then maybe he'll simply agree to match their level of effort for their own self-defense.

Interestingly, Congress clearly sees Trump as electable.

 

ah, so you don't care whats done, you just don't want Congress to do it with a 2\3 majority, you want one person to be able to do it

 

Well, the constitution already delegates these powers and responsibilities, and Congress is effectively taking powers and responsibilities that do not belong to it. And this is not the first time Congress has done this. It passed the sanctions bill, which also aimed to control the president's diplomatic role.

This is wholly and totally unacceptable. You cannot be for democracy and have Congress appropriate to itself powers that don't belong to it.

 

Trump is a threat to democracy

 

NATO is a threat to Democracy.

 

Brilliant move by Congress adding this to the bill signed into law. If by some miracle that traitorous mango piece of **** gets elected POTUS, he alone will not be able to pull the USA out of Nato.

 

well Trump has Putin's support that is for sure

 

If I get elected, in my first 100 days I am taking Congress to court over this dubious congressional legislation, and once I win, I am pulling us out of the European blood oath. The framers did NOT create this country for the good of Europe, but the good of Americans.

 

A. You aren't getting elected anywhere.
B. LOL

 

You can absolutely be for democracy and support a bipartisan resolution by directly elected members of congress to deny a single individual that was elected against the wishes of the people of this nation the ability to withdraw from a military alliance.

You should look up what a democracy is.

 

Actually our founders created it to separate from the tyrannical war mongering murderers...

 

The Executive branch can negotiate treaties, but for a treaty to become law or withdrawn, it is upon the "advice of the Senate" in Article 2. But once ratified, it is equal to all laws in Article 6 in the Supremecy clause. Thus, unilaterily withdrawing from a treaty has the same effect of unilaterally withdrawing a law that Trump does not like.

But again, it does not mean we are "serfs" or anything like that, it just means you are not going to get your wish of a totalitarian regime that can do whatever the hell it wants.

 

LOL, good luck with that, you will lose even in a conservative Supreme Court with most, except maybe Alito and Thomas, rejecting your assertion.

 

Actually, quite the contrary the Constitution is clear on the law: These powers are delegated, and they are delegated not to the legislative branch but to the executive branch. This law violates the US Constitution, Article I, section II. It was quite clear to these hacks what is, and what isn't allowed.