Congress is not supposed to sue the president to end a war. The president is not supposed to be able to declare war. This is a grade school child level understanding of the constitution. You read it one time and you understand this if you’re not a moron.
But if one moron at the top decides to go for it, what does it make the people that allow it to happen on their watch? And those who allow those other idiots to do that? Its morons all the way down, it seems.
Oh, hell, I thought this was going to be about donnie’s schemes to steal the election in a few weeks.
And then there are all the other things his administration is doing: building a ballroom, issuing money with his face on it, enriching himself and his disgusting family to the tune of billions, accepting jets from foreign countries, attacking cities with ICE, singlehandedly attacking women and trans, etc., etc.,
Congress: Can somebody help stop this regime?
People: Impeachment?
Other people: Why don’t you sue?
More People: Impeachment???
Technically impeachment is also a lawsuit.
In a sane world, the President not following the law as required by the constitution would be impeachment. Instead, the supreme court goes “what constitution” and congress claps.
Considering widows of soldiers are being denied benefits on the grounds this isn’t a war, that will not work out well.
I wouldnt discount the power of general apathy, which is why we are here in the first place. No sane person wouldve wanted him to have a second term. It takes actual participation to move an election, or yould just hand it to the other side.
Funny how you get those interviews mocking the Rs who now regret their vote, but not the sitouts who didnt even vote, when the country needed them most.
Doesn’t congress control the money? This would be like me suing my 8 year old kid because he buys too many Pokémon cards.
(BTW my actual kids are WAY older but it makes less sense that a 24 year old is buying Pokémon cards 😂)
Yes, but the Supreme Court ruled that historical preservation groups don’t have standing to sue when the president illegally tears down a building and builds whatever he wants on top of the ruins without congressional approval or appropriation, and that congress may have standing to sue, but that means no lawsuits would stop a president as long as said president had a compliant, agreeable, or inept congress in power, you’d have to wait until an opposing party or congress gets elected to stop illegal acts by the president… which seems… not what the founders intended or set up.
The problem with letting the President unilaterally start a war is that you can’t unilaterally end a war - you can only unilaterally stop fighting, which is different and often a bad idea.
Mate, I’m not sure I remember a time when the US was NOT in a constitutional crisis.
