740
Congress approves bill barring any president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO (thehill.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Congress has approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an Act of Congress. The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -32 points 2 years ago (14 children)

e to an ally’s aid if attacked,” why would anyone fear NATO, regardless of what obligations still exist on paper? … When I asked several people with deep links to NATO to imagine what would happen

So should the president be commander-in-chief or not? Normally liberals aren't quite so mask-off and in favor of a military junta, but please, tell me how you square this circle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)

    Normally liberals aren’t quite so mask-off ... please, tell me how you square this circle.

    Sorry, not American, so I found your question confusing.

    From the article above:

    The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.),

    Both parties seem to be in favour of limiting the power of the president to withdraw from NATO.

    This doesn't seem to be a simple partisan issue, as this legislation has bipartisan support.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -29 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    If you are viewing actions of the legislature strictly through a partisan lens, you dont' have enough background to approach the original concern at all.

    The original idea of the US government is three branches of government. If one branch of government "bipartisananly" wants to limit another branch of government, that should be cause for alarm and ideally the congressmen involved should be censured and possibly impeached. If you want to change the powers of the president, then it's time to rewrite the constitution, not do whatever the fuck this is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    No, you are missing the entire point of three branches of government. They are there as a check and balance of power to the others. They are literally supposed to stop the other branches from overstepping.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -20 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    It's been established that the president is in charge of foreign treaties. So it is congress that is overstepping here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    Article II section 2 of the constitution requires approval from the senate to ratify treaties, which is then up to the president to ratify and implement. Both branches of the government are supposed to work together to establish foreign policies, this is part of the check and balances. If you have sources interpreting article II section 2 differently I'd be curious to see.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    NATO is a mutual defense treaty that is in practice enforced by US armed forces. If you accept that the President is Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, if He chooses not to respect the terms of the treaty by not deploying the armed forces, then in what way does congress get a say without grossly violating the separation of powers?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Congress has the power to declare war. The president being commander-in-chief does not mean he can do whatever he please with the U.S army as its own personal force. The president is meant to follow the constitution, even as commander. If the president ignores treaties and war declarations, I would argue the president is the one violating the separation of powers, and not congress by hypothetically enforcing the powers given to them by the constitution. By this logic, whoever controller the army should have absolute power, being commander-in-chief and all. I like how you slipped past my initial post by completely ignoring that the constitution grants congress influence over foreign policies by citing the president control over the armed forces as this unalienable right. Why have treaties then? Why have declaration of war? I think you might be slightly biased in your argument. The president was never the sole responsible for foreign policies, even though the executive branch had a lot of influence over those in recent times.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    The Supreme Court has specifically made this point: The President “may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers.” Hamdan vs Rumsfeld (2006).

    Just because the President is commander-in-chief does not mean he has plenary power over everything related to the military and it’s use.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This is such a bad faith argument I almost fell for it. You're either being willfully ignorant or a troll.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •