Hacker News Reader

Comment by _bohm | Hacker News Reader

Starting illegal wars and engaging in extreme corruption, for starters.

The war isn't illegal. The president has that power. I don't like it either, but since the Korean War this is simply a statement of fact.

The president of the US does not have the power to start a war without getting it approved by the UN security council. You're arguing internal implementation details, but the legality is not determined by your courts.

I care less about what the UN says is legal than I do the local traffic cop

International law is not about what you care about. It just is. If you break it by starting a war, then it is an illegal war, ad definitionem.

> The war isn't illegal.

You're going to have to specify a framework if you want to make statements about legality.

US law, which is the only relevant law to discuss the actions of the president of the US.

The US constitution specifically calls out treaties signed by the US (such as the UN Charta) as supreme law of the land. Article VI, the "Supremacy Clause".

Thus, US law, too, defers to international law.

Please at least read the legal framework you're so confidently misdescribing.

It isn't obeyed or enforced and, therefore, is not the law. I won't read it as there is no point in doing so because it is not the law.

By that incredibly circular definition, laws don't exist. All it takes is ignoring them and then they disappear!

That's obviously not how things work. If you don't obey the law, you are a criminal. That's the whole point of laws.

A law defines the nature of collective action in response to certain violations. Words on paper themselves are impotent. If there is no potential for enforcement, i.e. there is no counterfactual state of collective action, there is no law.

That's exactly correct. Laws are not a physical entity and therefore their existence is predicated entirely on collective agreement.

So if you and I agree laws don't matter, we can go rob a bank together and it's all good?

If you and I, the president, congress, and the judiciary agree, then yes, and that's kind of the situation regarding the laws around starting a war.

Why only these local institutions? What makes those special?

They have the power to enforce laws

So do the mall cop and the ICC. Why does this arbitrary level in-between matter?

The mall cop much more so than the ICC

That sure is an attitude that explains why US soft power (and with that, Empire) has been crumbling at an unprecedented rate.

You might not care about the rules, but the rest of the world takes notice. This is how you break a world order carefully designed to further your own interests.

I already had you labeled as a climate denier and a troll, now I'll have to add one more item.

Add what you like. I can't possibly take anyone who uses the term "climate denier" seriously.

Under which "law" is President allowed legally to start a War - citation needed :)

It's been the established president since the Korean War when the US began ignoring the constitutional provision that gave congress the power to declare war. Additional examples are the Vietnam War, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq I & II, the Libyan regime change, and the current Iran conflict, and there are plenty more. The written law still states that the president does not have this power, but the actual unwritten law has been that he can. And that is the only law that matters.

> US began ignoring the constitutional provision

First, not US but Presidency and second, breaking Constitution is not very legal last time I checked but I could be wrong... /s

Yes, the US and not just the presidency. If it was just the presidency then he would have been impeached by congress for usurping their constitutional authority.

he was impeached (more than once cause he's a special kind of guy) and will be impeached again in 2029 :)

again, you are saying something is legal that is both clearly illegal and unconstitutional. you can say "it is illegal but we have no way to enforce since our congress and senate do not work for the people but are simple extension of a given political party in power" but you can't say that it is legal

The war is certainly illegal. Our systems are just so atrophied at this point that we treat congressional approval as a formality. This is a choice we make over and over again that we need to stop making.

Not even a formality. A formality means that he would get it from Congress, without Congress judging the war on merit. We don't even have that.

Speaking not just of this administration/war but also of past ones

>"The war isn't illegal. The president has that power"

Well you can say the same about Putin then. All nice and dandy

Of course I can. He even uses the same trick of not calling it a "war"

US constitution says that starting a war must be authorized by Congress, president has no authority to do it on his own.

The problem is: over time the US grew so powerful, that the definition of "war" became blurry. "No, we are not at war, our soldiers are just dropping bombs on Iran for fun and profit".

EDIT: Another problem, of course, is that current member of Congress have no balls to stand up to Trump and reclaim their constitutional powers.

Congress made its mistake a long time ago. Power is very difficult to reclaim once it has been relinquished. And it didn't even take a Caesar crossing the Rubicon in our case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com