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, spearheade…
Trump doesn't need to withdraw from NATO. He just needs to give Putin additional top secret intelligence, ignore all treaties, and do whatever the fuck he wants to do. Seriously, does anyone expect anything else?
And you think giving NATO intelligence to Putin won't screw up our relations with NATO and other nations? Because that's what he would do if reelected. Hell, knowing Trump, he'd probably invite Putin to the swearing in, and give him Top secret materials as a goody bag when he went home.
I mean the majority of us didn't. But yes let's hope even less next time. Sorry for stressing our friendship random person from unknown other country, we tried to stop it
If Trump is elected, honestly we have bigger problems than backing up NATO forces. I mean, at least there are NATO forces besides the US. It would be bad, but literally everything about it would be bad for everyone everywhere.
I mean, the President-elect must take the Oath of Office as stated in Article II, Section I , Clause 8 of the Constitution:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”.
So it is on there. But it’s really just a pinky promise between you and a higher power. Whether that be a deity, the government, society/the social contract, or whatever.
There are two problems with this:
1, president Trump did not believe in a higher power than himself. He may present as Christian or even a twice-a-year Christian, but make no doubts, he saw himself as the highest power, answerable to no one
2, the president shouldn’t be answerable to no one. But the system of checks and balances is broken by a party-before-country half of Congress and a stacked and obviously biased and hyper-political Supreme Court (that has at least one seat stolen depending on how consistent you are in your beliefs. More if you think back to Bush v Gore…which is also why I hate people spouting for third parties. If half of the Florida Nader voters held their nose and voted for Gore, there wouldn’t have even been a question. Were their virtues worth the result that came of them? I say the same for the Bernie Bros who couldn’t hold their nose for HRC).
Oaths are generally not legally binding. For instance, you can not swear to tell the truth in court and perjury is still a thing. The swearing in is just a formality.
Oaths are, as always, dependent upon the character of the person taking them and social consequences about breaking them.
Call me a conspiracy theorist but if there's an article 5 declaration and any President decides to stand in the way of the MIC from cranking on full profit mode, they'd get Kennedy'd.
I absolutely hate The Hill simply because they cannot be bothered to take 2 seconds to link to the damn bills they talk about in their articles.
For all I know they could talk about Congress passing a bill ratifying that the color of the sky shall be considered Red and the reader has no idea if it is true or not.
SEC. 1250A. LIMITATION ON WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NORTH
ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.
(a) OPPOSITION OF CONGRESS TO SUSPENSION, TERMINATION, DENUNCIATION, OR WITHDRAWAL FROM NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY.— The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw
the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Wash-
ington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators
present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(b) LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.—No funds authorized
or appropriated by any Act may be used to support, directly or
indirectly, any decision on the part of any United States Govern-
ment official to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the
United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present
concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(c) NOTIFICATION OF TREATY ACTION.—
(1) CONSULTATION.—Prior to the notification described in
paragraph (2), the President shall consult with the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in relation
to any initiative to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw
the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty.
(2) NOTIFICATION.—The President shall notify the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee
on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in writing
of any deliberation or decision to suspend, terminate, denounce,
or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty,
as soon as possible but in no event later than 180 days prior
to taking such action.
(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize, imply, or otherwise indicate that the Presi-
dent may suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw from any
treaty to which the Senate has provided its advice and consent
without the advice and consent of the Senate to such act or pursuant
to an Act of Congress.
(e) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this section or the
application of such provision is held by a Federal court to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of this subtitle and the application
of such provisions to any other person or circumstance shall not
be affected thereby.
(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this subtitle, the terms ‘‘withdrawal’’,
‘‘denunciation’’, ‘‘suspension’’, and ‘‘termination’’ have the meaning
given the terms in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
concluded at Vienna May 23, 1969.
The laws aren't written in any way that facilitates that for obvious reasons. It still requires a lot more effort (and to more directly be a dictator) if the system currently in place does not allow for something without force.
But like it's just saying the obvious. If the laws in place block it, he would need to hope the next coup actually works.
If one were able to assume any of those titles, wording of laws wouldn't matter, they would be able to replace the laws however they saw fit. So trying to phrase that would be redundant yet pointless.
The fact that this is even something Congress needed to consider doing is crazy.
The main purpose of the US military is deterrence. Soldiers and tanks and aircraft carriers do their job by being so intimidating that no one starts a major war. (They're still useful if a war does start, but winning a war is far worse than not having to fight it in the first place.) A major component of this system of deterrence is the presentation of an indivisible united front between us and our allies. Simply having the President publicly question the dedication of the USA to NATO did billions of dollars worth of damage - compare how much better it would be to have had Trump keep his mouth shut than it would be to build an extra carrier battle group. (Arguments about who pays how much can be held in secret.)
The fun part is that they can pass a law to prevent Trump from officially leaving NATO, but they can't pass a law to make him actually honor the alliance if a war does start, and they especially can't pass a law to make the enemies of the USA believe that he would honor the alliance.
Trump doesn't follow laws and has and continues to be at war with the constitution and rule of law. Nothing congress does matters. Especially when it's filled with brown shirt traitors.
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.
The provision underscores Congress’s commitment to the NATO alliance that was a target of former President Trump’s ire during his term in office.
“NATO has held strong in response to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s war in Ukraine and rising challenges around the world,” Kaine said in a statement.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) leaves a Senate Republican Conference luncheon where they heard from Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)
Biden has invested deeply in the NATO alliance during his term, committing more troops and military resources to Europe as a show of force against Putin’s war.
The former president’s advocates say his tough talk and criticisms of the alliance served to inspire member-states to fulfill their obligations to reach 2 percent of defense spending, lightening the burden on the U.S.
The original article contains 376 words, the summary contains 160 words. Saved 57%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I mean: it says the president removing the US from NATO now requires Senate approval or congressal act. So what % of Senate is required for Senate approval? 50%?
So Dems restructuring the Executive branch is cool, when the GOP claims to want changes its all hands on deck? NATO should have been dissolved with the Warsaw Pact. At least the USSR kept its word, unlike the US
“Restructuring the Executive branch” is a pretty bold label for this. Congress is required for getting into to treaties and ratified the US’ joining of NATO. Clarifying that they need to be apart of leaving seems like a pretty minor iteration. It wasn’t clearly defined before. Now it is.