He also wanted to invade Venezuela last year. His advisers talked him down from it. Some people still think he really wanted to end the wars.
I dunno. The Constitution and that whole pesky thing about declarations of war being Congress's power, not the Executive's. For starters, anyway.
Depends how you interpret that. A declaration of war in 18 century England was far different then what you think it means. It was not created as a means to start a conflict but rather to admit that yes we are in one and therefore it opened new laws and spending abilities not previously available. It was an acknowledgement of the fact that we are at war. And when you think about the way the powers are divided you see that congress is allowed to build the forces but only the president can use them, it is a check and balance we have. The Court has pretty much indicated this is how they would rule and congress has always pretty much agreed with it, that is why they came up with the War Powers Act which is just a compromise between the branches.
He's a lame duck president. His role right now is essentially to keep the seat warm for Biden, although I would personally toss every piece of furniture Trump touched.
18th century England was ruled by a king. This thread has to do with the United States (in the modern era), & the post to which you replied, explained the way the power to declare war was specifically limited to Congress, by our founders, who were not huge fans of 18th century England's mode of governing. The U.S. Constitution was their own, distinct, blueprint-- it was even called revolutionary, at the time-- & so English practice is far from the ideal guide for understanding it. Try to keep up.
Anything that is considered an act of war is illegal without Congressional approval. That is how it works out. Now, the President does have limited authority to deploy troups without a formal declaration. He has access to no more than 10,000 troops for things like peacekeeping, trainiong, etc, but these troops are heavily restricted in what they can do. You are right about Congress typically being very lenient with the President's peacetime military authority. The Vietnam War, for example, was not technically a war at all. No formal declaration was ever given. Congress simply authorized the President the deploy more troops and authorized the use of offensive combat as part of a "peacekeeping mission".
You may be shocked to learn how much they actually ripped off, including what a declaration of war is. To put it as simply as I can for, there are certain powers congress could only use if we were officially at war, things like funding, raising armies, and certain laws. That is why the founders gave them the ability to decide when it was appropriate to use them and not the president. The power to declare war actually has nothing to do with actual warfare, it's a procedural move.
It has never been tested at the Supreme Court but odds are they would agree with me. The president was given control of the military, not congress which is why they settled for the war powers act but Ford is the only one that actually ever followed it if I remember correctly. Even Bush straight up said the war powers act had no meaning and he wouldn't follow it. And congress has never tried to push it for a definitive ruling by the court because they may lose that power entirely. The Roberts Court especially is a big believer of intent in the constitution rather than literal interpretation.
The Top Brass in the Military have already made it clear that they will NOT obey any UNLAWFUL orders from the biggest LOSER*-in-Chief.
