War

Sarah Sanders 'Can't Think of Anything Dumber Than Allowing Congress To Take Over Our Foreign Policy'

The former press secretary thinks abiding by the Constitution would be the worst thing for America right now.

|

The U.S. Constitution splits the federal government's war-making powers between the president and the Congress, giving the latter the sole authority to declare war. But don't tell Sarah Huckabee Sanders that.

This morning, the president's former press secretary said that the worst thing for America would be for Congress to actually exercise its constitutionally prescribed role.

"I can't think of anything dumber than allowing Congress to take over our foreign policy," Sanders said during an appearance on Fox and Friends this morning. "They can't seem to manage to get much of anything done. I think the last thing we want to do is push powers into Congress' hands and take them away from the president."

Sanders was responding to a question about the War Powers Act resolutions pending in both the House and Senate. The legislation calls on President Donald Trump to "remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military" within 30 days unless Congress passes a declaration of war or another authorization of military force.

Preventing the president from starting an undeclared, and therefore unconstitutional, war? Sanders thinks that's way outside the purview of Congress. "The last thing I want to do is see them take power away from President Trump and put it into their own hands," she said. "I don't think anything could be worse for America than that."

The point of splitting the power to declare war from the power to wage it is to ensure some level of deliberation and popular input before the U.S. enters a conflict the whole country will have to fight. But Sanders seems to prefer an alternative constitutional arrangement where the president can decide to start a conflict on a whim.

She's far from alone in thinking this. Just last night, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) denounced two of his Republican colleagues, Sens. Mike Lee (R–Utah) and Rand Paul (R– Ky.), for supporting the war powers resolution. Paul and Lee, Graham declared, were "empowering the enemy."

The truth is rather different. Given the reckless and incompetent way Trump dragged this country to the brink of war with Iran, imposing a little restraint on the executive sounds like one of the better things Congress could be doing.

Advertisement

NEXT: Justice Department Tells States the Equal Rights Amendment Is Dead

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Foreign policy is set by the executive branch. Declaration of war is a separate issue. Stop confusing the two, Reason.

    1. It can be a shared power depending on what one is talking about.

      WAR: Congress authorizes it and the Executive Branch executes.
      TREATIES: The Executive Branch makes the deals and the US Senate authorizes it or not.
      INTERNATIONAL LAW: Congress creates law or not and the Executive Branch executes the law.

      1. True. That is a more accurate way of stating it. Co-equal branches and all that.

    2. It is a deliberate distortion by Britschgi.

      Then again, do you really think you are going to get critical thinking skills from a PolySci graduate from Portland University?

      1. KMW’s hiring practices strike again.

      2. Sarah Sanders embodies the reason accomplished and wise people, when they need valuable advice, immediately exclaim ‘Get me someone from Ouachita Baptist!’

        That she attended Ouachita Baptist, with all of the opportunities and advantages associated with being a governor’s child, is everything a reasoning person needs to know about Sarah Sanders.

        Downscale clingers, however, appear to think she’s just dreamy.

        1. Of course you’d body shame her.

          1. I did not mention her appearance or accent, you bigoted rube.

            1. Look again dumbass.

              1. Still not there, you slack-jawed, disaffected bigot.

              2. Please explain what he said that amounted to body shaming. I have read it three times and nothing that I see even alludes to her body at all.

                1. I think he’s making a pun based on Faggot’s use of the word ‘embodied’. Faggot is too stupid for things like wit so he missed it.

        2. Your alter ego has such better material. It has the virtue of being original. Your contribution are rather like the needles and feces left behind on a daily basis in that progressive bastion of SFO.

          1. This is why we replaced him

            1. Delicious irony.

          2. “Your alter ego has such better material….”

            So does OBL, for that matter.

            1. He does actually. He’s not great, but he’s better.

              Looking at you sarcasmic.

        3. “Ouachita Baptist”
          Oikophobia and religious bigotry, so woke, so tolerant.

          Now tell us how she should shut up because she’s a woman, Kirkland. It’s the progressive thing to do.

          1. Well he already body shamed her…

        4. “”with all of the opportunities and advantages associated with being a governor’s child, is everything a reasoning person needs to know about Sarah Sanders.””

          Cool, now do Chelsea Clinton.

          1. Chelsea Clinton chose education from a series of first-tier schools. Not a single right-wing goober factory with sketchy accreditation and a bottom-scraping rank on her fine resume.

            Thanks for playing. While awaiting replacement.

    3. Declaration of war is a part of foreign policy.
      And even outside of formally declaring war, the responsibility for setting foreign policy is shared between both branches of government anyway.

      1. “chemjeff radical individualist
        January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
        When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

        So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

        You’ve spent three days running from the question.

      2. The day to day conduct of foreign policy is primarily an executive responsibility, with some extraordinary actions requiring legislative enabling and consent.

        Putting the entirety of foreign policy under control of the legislature would be stupid and unworkable, especially with the goon squad currently in the majority in the House. Less so, the extraordinary powers the Constitution requires legislative consent for, but executive officials of either party hardly ever argue that the presidency is not allowed at least some unilateral discretion on them (see the Obama administration with bombing Libya and whether their agreement Paris climate accords were binding on the USA, for example).

        1. Where would we be if it weren’t for the Popes?

          What business dones’t run best with two CEOs?

          Thank God those Jesuses died for our sin.

        2. “Putting the entirety of foreign policy under control of the legislature would be stupid and unworkable, especially with the goon squad currently in the majority in the House.”

          But they are not looking to put the entirety of Foreign Policy under the control of the legislature. The act under consideration is specifically about whether or not the AUMF- a Congressionally passed law, allows the President to engage Iranian assets. There is disagreement. Congress is clarifying to say, no, AUMF does not give the President that ability. This isn’t a wholesale takeover of foreign policy.

          1. You’ll note the ‘Iranian asset’ was in Iraq, which last I checked falls under the AUMF.

            Not that I’m a fan of eternally authorized military force, but it seems Congress is disagreeing with itself here.

          2. I was addressing the stupidity and disingenuousness of labelling congress’s actions as them taking control of foreign policy. No, they are (possibly) reasserting their duty of declaring war, they are not taking over foreign policy.

      3. See Mickey Ray’s post. He explains my position very elegantly.

    4. Wasn’t it Sarah Sanders who confused the two?

      1. Nope, that was Joe Biden!!!

    5. I agree with you. It is disappointing that an “associate editor of Reason” would be so agenda driven at the expense of the truth. Maybe he is angling for an MSM job? President does foreign policy, which is what Sanders said. Congress declares war. Congress also empowered the Prez to take action over and above his power to instantly respond for 60 days before seeking Congressional approval. Of course if we have a Prez like BHO who claimed that war is just a “kinetic action” for which he needs no approval after 60 days, then there is something to deal with.

  2. They are not confusing the two. They are click-baiting with Fake News Headlines.

    1. The KMW effect. She’s all about the clicks to boost revenue. At some point Reason becomes the National Enquirer online.

    2. True. Falsely conflating the existing Constitution and a proposed bill. Sad.

  3. “Sarah Sanders ‘Can’t Think of Anything Dumber Than Allowing Congress To Take Over Our Foreign Policy’
    The former press secretary thinks abiding by the Constitution would be the worst thing for America right now.”

    Is this two different articles or is that non-sequitur intentional?

  4. Britschgi evidently takes writing lessons from the birdbrains: Boehm, Binion, Brown. Now Britschgi can be the 4th birdbrain.

    WTF is it with the Reason writers whose last name begins with the letter B?!

    1. Bailey is still okay.

      1. Too bad radley balko left. The only non-clinger

        1. “Too bad radley balko left. The only non-clinger”

          Too bad you showed up, one more asshole bigot.

          1. Time for a trip to the optometrist S.

        2. I’ll bet you really love Balko now! His skin is turning purple from all the WaPo Kool Aid he’s imbibed.

        3. Reverend….good to see you back. Now please, stalk your alter ego and tell him to get new material. This ‘open wider clinger’ shit is just so….stale and dated. You’re so much more entertaining.

      2. Bailey is ok if you consider completely cosigning laughable anthropogenic climate change propaganda ok.
        It’s all about the Global Socialist narrative

  5. “I can’t think of anything dumber than allowing Congress to take over our foreign policy,” Sanders said

    Poor Britches. He is like Charlie Day as his illiteracy is screwing unreason again.

    “Take over our foreign policy”, as in Congress is in charge not shared powers.

    1. Fight milk!!!

      1. Fight like a crow!

        100% Crowtein!

        1. Can we start calling Jeff “pussy hands”?

          1. Here’s to you, Pussy Hands.

      2. What else is one to drink to wash down a hearty milk steak? Clearly it must be some hating made from crows.

  6. In her defense, take a look at the Congress we elected.

    1. ew.

      That’s gross.

      Instead of looking at them, can we keep them behind a curtain?

      1. Then they would want to be called “the great and powerful”

        1. “Would” . . ?

          They are a composite: no brain, hollow and cowardly lyin’s.

          . . .and notice how you never see Pelosi or Hillary around any more water than will fit in a Dixie cup . . ?

          1. Water?
            That’s straight vodka, homey

          2. Pelosi is pretty much Mallory Archer’s at this point. Without any of Archer’s good qualities.

  7. Notice that she’s concerned it will take away power from “President Trump”. Not the office of the president, not the commander in chief, not the executive branch, but the specific person of Donald Trump.

    Does she think he’s going to be in office forever? Would she still be in favor of absolute military authority for the president if Hillary had won the election? If Bernie wins the next one? Can she not see past 2024?

    The Democrats imagined that Obama ushered in a permanent Democrat Presidency, and were gobsmacked when Trump won. Well the Republicans now have the same delusion, that there is now a permanent Republican Presidency. Fucking bullshit. Eventually someone you hate will get back into that office, and they will then have ALL THE POWER that you have willingly given to Trump.

    Limit government always and ever. A separate of powers is one tool to do that. Put chains on the presidency regardless of who the current president happens to be.

    1. All true, but what they count on is that their flipflops aren’t noticed because the media will decry “whataboutism” and whatever happened in a previous administration goes down the memory hole.

      1. To be fair, I’m sure there are plenty of people here who cheered for Obama bombing the shit out of Libya on the premise that as long as there weren’t any boots on the ground it wasn’t a war but merely an act of foreign policy, no need to consult Congress because it was solely the executive’s prerogative to conduct foreign policy. For some reason, they didn’t cheer quite so much over Obama’s use of his foreign policy prerogative to sign a deal with Iran. I think I may have been the only one complaining about Obama’s failure to assert his authority as C-in-C of the military to shut down Guantanamo but rather his acquiescence to Congress’ demand that it remain open for the unlawful indefinite detention of foreign combatants who for some reason didn’t seem quite combative enough to justify being shot in the head and having their corpses dumped in the ocean as it would seem quite reasonable to do.

    2. How many behind these war powers resolutions were sitting on their hands when Obama wanted to bomb Libya?

      1. Worst foreign policy decision is US history, supplanting Wilson’s entry into WWI.
        Toppling the only regime to comply and turn over its entire WMD program 7 years later is a disastrously bad precedent.

        1. Not quite.

          When Woodrow “He Kept Us From War!” Wilson pushed us into WWI, that opened the way for FDR to push us into WWII and LBJ to push us into Vietnam.

          If not for these things, Libya would never have been such an inviting target for regime change.

          1. Notice that they are all Progressive Democrats pushing the US into war!!

    3. I think it just means she’ll change her tune the next time a Democrat occupies the White House.

    4. Unless the Democrats stop hitting the bottle (not happening anytime soon), Trump-esque candidates will continue to win. And yeah, they’re going to get more extreme as Democrats become increasingly retarded and Marxist. Let’s just hope it remains in the realm of stupid news articles and TV heads shouting at each other and not actual sectarian conflict and helicopter rides.

  8. I’ve been to the brink of war so many times with Trump that my war boner has blue balls!

    1. We are on World War LX by now!

      1. It’s World War F25E6A

    2. Go ask somebody for some Police Action

  9. That’s right. You can sleep well at night knowing that Dear Leader Stable Genius is in charge.

    1. Well, I certainly sleep better than if Hillary or Obama or Sanders or any of the other leftist war mongers were in charge.

      1. And how well did you sleep when it was Obama exercising those powers and how well will you sleep when it’s one of Sanders’ acolytes exercising them? Or are you arguing that it’s all a matter of having the right Top Men in charge?

    2. “chemjeff radical individualist
      January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
      When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

      So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

      You’ve spent three days running from the question.

    3. how many people are sleeping better knowing al-Baghdadi and Soleimani are toes-up?

      1. His harem at least.

        1. yeah. is it less terrifying to be in the harem or just be regular chick?

      2. Actually, I think his toes have finally come back down.

  10. And here goes Team Red again, embracing the Dear Leader style of presidentin’.

    1. And here goes Team Blue again (you), cheer-leading for the retards that spent that last three years screaming about Russian collusion and a five minute phone call and were completely wrong on both fucking counts. Yes, these Team Blue retards really need to get involved in managing Trump’s foreign policy decisions because they are acting in complete good faith.

      A swift kick in the teeth for you, Jeff.

      1. Good faith or not, foreign policy is shared between branches of government, and is not the sole prerogative of the executive.

        1. “Good faith or not, foreign policy is shared between branches of government, and is not the sole prerogative of the executive.”

          I’m sure you’re tired from pushing those goal posts all over. Why don’t you fuck off?

        2. //Good faith or not//

          Good faith matters.

          Remember all that hand-wringing about Trump not following the “proper” channels and acting with “bad” intent even though what he was doing was otherwise legal and within the scope of his executive power? This is no different. Team Blue may have some share in foreign policy, but we can’t trust them, so fuck em.

          1. Team Blue may have some share in foreign policy, but we can’t trust them, so fuck em.

            Yes, I think it’s right there in Article 13 of the Constitution:

            “The President may act unilaterally if he doesn’t trust Congress.”

            1. Just like “we can impeach the President for phone call” is right there too. Right? If you’re going to shred the Constitution, it’s all or nothing. You don’t get to pick and choose the parts you like to get sanctimonious about.

              1. “we can impeach the President for phone call”

                Well, the Constitution does say something about the House having the sole power of impeachment, and that it must be for a deliberately vague reason of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, so, yeah actually.

                Just so we’re clear about who’s on the Constitution-shredding side of things here. It’s not me.

                Your reaction is just an emotional outburst. “They did mean things to Daddy Trump, now I’m going to set the Constitution on fire in rage!”

                1. //and that it must be for a deliberately vague reason//

                  This is why people abuse you.

                  1. Selective quoting to twist the meaning of my words, now, are we?

                  2. He comes back again and again, even though he is the most thoroughly discredited commenter here ever.

        3. I love how this means you can’t insult anyone ever again

          “chemjeff radical individualist
          January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
          When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

          So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

        4. Bullshit. The Executive Branch determines foreign policy. Congress can advise but the President can tell them to piss off.

        5. Wrong again jeffy!
          Foreign Policy is Executive Branch. Congress can only involve itself by passing a law that is signed by the President or overriding a veto.

    2. “chemjeff radical individualist
      January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
      When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

      So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

      You’ve spent three days running from the question.

    3. Congress has certain, limited duties with regards to specific foreign policy decisions, wars and treaties being the two and their only real Powers there is voting for or against. But actually setting foreign policy, the Constitution doesn’t give them any power over, nor in executing foreign policy.

  11. The U.S. Constitution splits the federal government’s war-making powers between the president and the Congress, giving the latter the sole authority to declare war. But don’t tell Sarah Huckabee Sanders that.

    I think the Constitution is pretty clear:
    (1) A “declaration of war” is a piece of paper. Congress has the power to create and send that piece of paper.
    (2) The president has the power to command the US military to go to places and actually shoot people, with or without a declaration of war.
    (3) Congress has the power to impeach the president if he abuses that power, and Congress has the power to cut military funding.

    The idea that, under the Constitution, Congress has the power micromanage what the US military can do or determine foreign policy other than declarations of war is ludicrous.

    1. “(2) The president has the power to command the US military to go to places and actually shoot people, with or without a declaration of war.”
      Certainly not. To say that the congress have the power of declaring war but the president can wage war without such a declaration (not just to “repel sudden attacks” but engaging in full warfare) is making a joke of the constitution.

      And no the president do not have the general power to “shoot people”. He can do it for self-defense (like anyone) or during a war (if he respect the laws of war, witch include the necessity to declare such a war) for example, but he do not have a power of life and death over anyone (even foreigners in foreign land). That’s not what the constitution says, neither that it is what international law says (and treaties ratified by the United States are also the law of the land).

      1. Now do Obama and bin laden.

      2. Now do LBJ and Vietnam.

        1. I was only responding to NOYB2’s point 2 and I was not even talking about Trump so I do not really see your point.

          1. Pretty much the entire drone program has been a violation since its inception. The signature strikes are even worse because we don’t know who the target is.

      3. Now do Obama and Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (16 year old American kid in Yemen).

      4. Now do Bill Clinton and Sammy Weaver (14 year old boy), Vicki Weaver (unarmed wife holding baby Elisheba), and Elisheba Weaver (10 month old baby).

        1. Actually, Ruby Ridge was August 1992, Bush was President. He got mad and quit the NRA after they compared the FBI to jackbooted thugs. And Elisha Weaver wasn’t killed.

          1. You are correct.

      5. Now do Jeffery Epstein and the Metropolitan Correctional Center.

        Cause he didn’t kill himself.

  12. This is not only true but also the biggest reason we should do it.

  13. //Given the reckless and incompetent way Trump dragged this country to the brink of war with Iran//

    Really? We were on the brink of war with Iran? The train has left the hyperbole station and has run right off the rails into lunacy, otherwise known as “Reason.”

    Only a moron or dishonest asshole would right something like this and pass it off as foreign policy analysis.

    1. No….a PolySci graduate like BirdBrain #4 Brischgi would do it too = Only a moron or dishonest asshole would right something like this and pass it off as foreign policy analysis.

    2. Everybody knows that we Americans are frail and weak, and that the only way to avoid being on the brink of war with Iran is to support their theocratic regime, so the responsible thing to do is send that regime $100 billion every year and aid in their pursuit of nuclear weapons

  14. If Sarah Sanders can’t think of anything dumber than allowing Congress to take over foreign policy she’s either a moron or she has no imagination. I mean, right there in that sentence you’ve got both “Sanders” and “Congress”, two things dumber than what she can imagine. Throw in the idea of Bernie being a popular choice among certain people to exercise the powers she’d grant to the president, and you’ve got three things dumber than than she can imagine.

  15. No one seems to have mentioned- why would we give a flying fig what Sarah Sanders thinks? What are qualifications to offer an opinion on….well, anything?

    1. Something I can actually agree with.

      Now apply it to everyone in DC and we’re on to something.

    2. ‘No one seems to have mentioned- why would we give a flying fig what *wearingit* thinks?
      Fixed.

    3. “”No one seems to have mentioned- why would we give a flying fig what Sarah Sanders thinks? What are qualifications to offer an opinion on….well, anything?””

      Cool now do Greta Thunburg.

      1. But….. ain’t a great the greatest mind of the 21st century, and an accomplished scientist? Like Reed Richards, or Hank Pam. And just as likely to render a valuable scientific analysis.

    4. Cool… now do Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Hillary….

  16. Going by what Sanders said and the comments of her fellow White Supremacist and economically-illiterate Trumpista morons here, who not only proved their stupidity but also proved they’re homicidal maniacs, their contempt for humanity is not enough as they also show a callous disregard for the Constitution and the concept of division of powers. They’re living examples of what Fascism looks like. No surprise there. Fortunately, these Trumpista fucks will be replaced, by far BETTER people. If this flares up their paranoia, oh that ship sailed long ago, sweethearts, considering how far Trumpistas are removed from reality, the ridiculous motherfuckers. They’re the kind of moronic fuckers who think Puerto Ricans live in a Mexican country. They worship a guy who can hardly speak coherently. Imbeciles!

    1. Hi SQRLSY.

    2. Speaking of replacement, you are this close to replacing Shikha Dalmia as Exhibit A for why open borders is a fantastic idea. The US would be so much better if tens of millions more highly skilled Mexican doctors and engineers like you would immigrate here.

      #OpenBorders

  17. And this is why Reason’s comment section has turned into a pile of toxic waste.

    This article could have been headlined, “Whitehouse and Congress Spar over Authorization to Wage War on Iran.” Then, it could have been a discussion of all these points and why the libertarian should side with Congress, here.

    But instead of an analysis of the Issues from the viewpoint of a libertarian, the Reason writers seem to believe we want to see Libertarians dunking on Trump. The writers have to hop on their moral high horse, amp their derision up to 11, and then write an article snidely insinuating that the President and his staff are idiots and barbarians. Naturally, in come the Trumpaloos who feel the need to match this derision with their own rhetoric.

    God damnit, Trolling is for commenters, not for Reason writers. It may shock the Reason staff, but it is not on its face patently obvious that everything Trump does is evidence of his evil and/or incompetence. It is a fact that around 50% of the country agrees with his doings, and trying to score rhetorical 1-Ups on him isn’t an appropriate way to, er, Reason with them. You are betraying the very name of this magazine in a selfish attempt to look clever.

    So, Christian, as a long time Reason subscriber, I beseech you to dial it back. Here is a secret: when you act so aghast that anyone- especially the White House- has a different viewpoint on this, it doesn’t make you look like the smartest person in the room. It makes you look simple and incapable of understanding that issues in this world are actually complex.

    1. good comment Overt and what you say is much of what is happening everywhere with the media and the general population. Trump has his foibles but he is also not the evil master mind Hitler they make him out to be and calling anyone who voted for him as their only choice racist only raises everyones defenses needlessly. A little respect and honesty by the media and democrats would go a long way towards cooling things off, and frankly i’m surprised no one has killed anyone yet.

      1. You forget the attempted assassination of 30+ Team R members of Congress on a ballfield.

        People have been killed. That is should happen here is incredible.

    2. Well said, Overt.

    3. //But instead of an analysis of the Issues from the viewpoint of a libertarian, the Reason writers seem to believe we want to see Libertarians dunking on Trump. //

      That is what Koch industries wants and, therefore, what Reason will publish. This is not a libertarian magazine. It is a propaganda outlet funded by billionaires with an agenda, which is precisely why the contributors and editors pump out this type of nonsense on a daily basis.

      “It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It”

    4. But Reason isn’t a straight news magazine, and has no pretensions of being a straight news magazine.

      1. “But Reason isn’t a straight news magazine, and has no pretensions of being a straight news magazine.”

        And? I never said anything about News. I said “Analysis”.

        The sad fact is that many of the benefits of libertarian principles fall into the “unseen” category. That means you need to get people to understand why a seen benefit/cost is outweighed by the unseen cost/benefit. We see tariffs lowering imports, but don’t see the drag on the economy. We see drugs kept away from our kids, but don’t see the black market. We see companies hoovering up profits, but don’t see the effects of increased utility among their customers, or the effects of wealth on employees and investors. It takes some discussion to get people to see this stuff.

        And it is difficult to convince people to look further than the seen if you are trying to make them feel foolish for acknowledging what was right in front of them. Yet that is what these reason writers do all the time. And this feeds into the balkanization of politics today. Why should I engage with Reason’s arguments if they are just going to call me (or my chosen leader) an idiot?

      2. “”But Reason isn’t a straight news magazine,””

        No shit.

        But is suppose to be a place where you can hear arguments, or opinions based on…… wait for it………. Reason.

        1. The the Big Lie.
          Reason is here for no other purpose than to shill for Global Socialism

    5. Beautiful comment, Overt!
      Thank you for pointing out what I was instinctively feeling as I read the article and some of the comments. As neither “right” nor “left,” and disagreeing entirely that we have whittled it all down to that either/or choice of thought, I began following Reason hoping to get reasonable discourse and analysis which (beside simple factual reporting) is so lacking in our “illustrious” media. I began to get a bit disappointed. But am not throwing away my registration just yet. I’m hopeful logic will prevail.

      1. //I’m hopeful logic will prevail.//

        You think it’s bad now? Wait until Trump gets reelected.

        Save your money and time. If you want real analysis, you are better off doing it yourself. You don’t need an intermediary like “Reason.” You’re better off reading “The Babylon Bee.”

        1. The comments are good.
          Annoying that we do Reason’s job for them

  18. She’s not wrong.

    As usual, Bitchski is much wronger

  19. Quiz time!

    “Congress is not acting in good faith, so the President has no choice but to take matters into his own hands.”

    Was this said by:

    A. Obama’s supporters, circa 2013
    B. Trump supporters, circa 2020
    C. All of the above

    1. When it comes to being the commander in chief, Congress has fuck all to do with it.

    2. Did anyone ever actually say that?

      “chemjeff radical individualist
      January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
      When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

      So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

      You’ve spent three days running from the question

    3. “”“Congress is not acting in good faith, so the President has no choice but to take matters into his own hands.”””

      D. All presidents that said I have a pen and a phone

  20. The issue is not “rolling back” powers granted to the president. The democrats in the house want to limit Trump’s authority, but only concerning Iran. This is simply more TDS from the dems. Congress should revoke the War Powers Act and the Military Authorization Act of 2001. Congress SHOULD reclaim the constitutional authority they have given to the executive. However, ignoring the past two presidencies and pretending Trump is some sort of “existential threat” to humanity shows the dem’s TDS. Interestingly, the president who has been the most restrained in regards to overseas adventurism, is the one the that needs more legal restraints? Odd.

    1. “…Congress should revoke the War Powers Act and the Military Authorization Act of 2001. Congress SHOULD reclaim the constitutional authority they have given to the executive. However, ignoring the past two presidencies and pretending Trump is some sort of “existential threat” to humanity shows the dem’s TDS…”

      That would require good-faith action, and the Ds in congress have not acted in good faith since that hag lost.
      They have spent three years attempting to impeach Trump for his lack of manners in defeating that scumbag HRC.

      1. We’ve been here before – Congress passed a War Powers Act with regards to Nixon and the Vietnam War which Nixon rejected as an unconstitutional infringement of his powers as C-in-C. When the issue reached the Supreme Court as to whether or not the Vietnam War was even a war given that Congress had never issued a declaration making it so, the Supremes told the plaintiffs to fuck off – Congress has the checkbook and if they don’t like the way the money’s being spent, all they gotta do is stop writing the damn checks. Of course, Congress didn’t have the balls to actually stop writing the checks, they just wanted to retain the right to bitch and moan about how the responsibilities they had pawned off on the President were being misused. It’s the same thing here – if they really gave a shit about the Imperial Presidency as a matter of principle, they would have impeached Obama when he over-stepped his authority just the same as Trump.

  21. >>dragged this country to the brink of war with Iran

    oy. the fuck’s Iran gonna do?

    1. Hey, it might have been a tipping point! Could have been the beginning of the end! The walls could be closing in!
      He didn’t get a refill on his TDS scrip.

      1. BRINK

        OF

        WALLS

        CLOSING

        IN!!!!

  22. http://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-ptsd-stricken-ilhan-omar-jokes-squadmates-during-presser-us-casualties-iraq

    I think Omar might have real mental disabilities. That doesn’t have anything to do with her being a terrible person.
    It’s her speech patterns. That’s not an accent, it’s someone who can’t get through 5 words without belching

    1. LOL – you think Omar might have real mental disabilities? You try being a Muslim woman speaking out on the righteousness of Islam when one of Islam’s basic tenets is that Muslim women ought to keep their fucking mouths shut. See if you can do that without having a severe mental disability. If Omar actually believed the shit she regularly spews, she’d have stoned herself to death years ago.

      1. That might be one of the funniest things I have read here.

  23. Since the video that was in the article, no longer is, I can only point out that criticism of Sanders on what she is quoted as saying is misplaced. What she said is correct, but if she was only talking about War Powers Act, then she’d be wrong. I doubt she was however, as she knows her stuff and is ordinarily very sharp.

    Further, whatever powers Congress may have as relates to anything foreign or domestic for that matter, I don’t trust _this_ congress to execute them competently or intelligently, given their performance (lack of) in recent years.

    https://www.state.gov/duties-of-the-secretary-of-state/

    Boom.

  24. While Sarah certainly stated it badly, I get her point. The USA could be attacked, invaded, conquered and a foreign government ruling and Congress would still not have come to a consensus on whether to go to war.

  25. In fairness to Sarah Sanders, Congress hasn’t had any meaningful input into matters surrounding war and peace for the last 30 years. There needs to be better definition, in a modern context, on what a President can and cannot do unilaterally.

    1. 30 years? I think December of 1941 was their last meaningful input and say on military actions.

  26. Whenever I need a good laugh I just read the comment section on Reason. It cracks me up when inbred redneck conservatives think they’re smart by saying they’re libertarian, but most are just run of the mill boot licking cons. They have no problem with a mentally unbalanced child bringing us to the brink of war as long as taxes get lowered and abortion. It boggles my mind how dumb some people are.

  27. What a crock of pure shit story. The Constitution does not require Trump to tell Congress diddly shit in his role as Commander in Chief. He only needs their approval to declare war, not take out a terrorist.

  28. Let’s get something STRAIGHT, Trump did NOT DECLARE war on anyone. He merely shot back at someone firing at us. I define that as “self-defence”. Anyone who thinks that was escalatory needs a head examination.
    Sincerely,
    George Danz
    Peachtree City, GA

Please to post comments