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

Treaties are exclusive to Article 2, section 2, and Article VI, the Supremacy Clause, of the US Constitution.

 

This is a flaw in the Constitution, it cannot be seen that a treaty is the same as federal law. Otherwise, the entangling alliances the framers feared would have been more established in this country than even under Great Britain. If NATO countries were to begin some genocide, are we now helpless in an alliance with dictators?

The executive branch must not be controlled by the legislative branch in foreign affairs. If the legislative branch wants this power, then it shouldn't stop here: It should take ALL of the powers and responsibilities: They should negotiate the treaties, they should be US delegates. They should then also command the army.

The legislative wants this power, then it can have it.

 

Imagine this country being yoked to a treaty and unable to revise the matter, without the blessing of our congressional overlords.

 

One would think that laws relating to international affairs should provide some benefit to the U.S. I don't see any benefit to the U.S. in this. I only see an increase in the power and control of congress. Just what they needed.

 

They are our elected representatives. Our vote has far more power over our House or Senate member than it does over the President.

I think that your frustration may be that we are not effectively controlling Congress.

A couple of ideas are floating around for Constitutional Amendments to improve that, and remember Article 5 includes a path to amendment that does not require the agreement of any federal office holder:

1. An amendment to allow the State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote. Your Senator isn't listening? Tell your State representatives to recall his ass.
2. Grant the majority of the State Legislatures the power to put a bill on the President's desk for signature if the majority of the State Legislatures pass the identical bill, with veto override on the agreement of 2/3rds of the State Legislatures.

Right now Congress is the only game in town and the Beltway takes full advantage of that.

This would open that up to our advantage.

 

depends on how much praise and $$$ Putin gives Trump, sadly Congress sees the benefit of such a law as do many Americans - Trump puts Trump first....

 

Now THIS I can get on board with. If we citizens don't want to invest ourselves in foreign wars abroad, then we can make that voice more effectively known.

 

So will these lawmakers and those Americans be the first to go to war in Europe? It's their commitment, so they should pay the price before the rest of us.

 

May be a "flaw" but there is no amendment to correct it either. Thus, it is the law of the land, whether you agree with it or not. We have a separation of powers in so far that the executive branch does not gain too much power. The Courts have done that exclusively with several acts that they ruled upon on what the Government can and cannot do. But it has not been the legislative branch. And thus, your version of Totalitarian regimes will fail. Congrats.

 

It isn't a matter of totaltarianism, it's a matter of respect for the executive branch which this Congress clearly doesn't have. Which, alright then, by executive order give all of that power to Congress. Congress shouldn't get to pick and choose which powers it wants, and which ones it doesn't.

Congress should engage in diplomatic missions. Congress should suit up militarily and Congress should be the ones to appropriate the funds accordingly. These 535 members should take on the function of the executive branch.

 

once Republicans pay for their two 20+ year wars

 

Well as we withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan(finally), we can't do that but I wouldn't be opposed to sending them if they dare declare that region still matters. If these politicians have skin in the game, then they'd make different decisions.

 

Republicans did not start "two 20+ year wars"

 

Afghanistan and Iraq, your right, only one was 20+ years

 

I have always said, if we had a war tax every time we had a war, there would be less war - Afghanistan would not of lasted 20 years

 

And one of those was NOT started by a Republican administration

 

both of them were... Bush Jr Started them

I think all of us would have been ok with a quick retaliatory strike for 911, but not the 20+ year boots on the ground

 

Only a relatively tiny number of Americans were killed in the Afghan conflict yearly. Calling it a "war" is a majjor stretch.

And you often do not get to fight a simple "retaliatory strike" because that is the type of conflict you prefer.

 

it cost us about 10 trillion and the blood of many Americans

we could of easily just made it a quick Arial response, couple months at most

 

10 trillion ? Anyone who believes that is a complete idiot.

 

Trump said it was 8 trillion in 2019 - but we all know it was much more then the cost on paper...

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/T...as-he-decries-endless-Middle-East-wars-604506

OCTOBER 15, 2019

"“We have spent $8 trillion in the Middle East, thousands of American soldiers have lost their lives, and tens of thousands more have been wounded,” he said. Four trillion of that sum was on the war in Iraq, Trump said, adding that now, the Middle East is less safe and less secure."

 

Trumps a worthless idiot as most people well know

 

well at least we can agree on that

 

This is just plain ridiculous!