re: Massie going against Trump again

It’s annoying. Even much more so the gator fan keeps saying I’m someone im not. Thats fine if it’s his opinion but he continues to try and convince other people. Idk what the MoT guy did to him but hes mindfricked over that person.

quote:

---

And youre an urban soy boy.

---

Yet I live in rural Louisiana.

The Alaskan alcoholic lives in a shitty efficiency apartment in the city

quote:

---

Yet I live in rural Louisiana.

---

Pensacola, if youre being honest.

No sir. It dropped. He is right.

The U.S. annual inflation rate eased to 2.7% for the 12 months ending November 2025, down from 3.0% in September.

quote:

---

No sir. It dropped. He is right.

---

We arent experiencing deflation.

You have no clue what youre talking about

quote:

---

Massie going against Trump and every other Deep State/globalist again

---

FIFY

quote:

---

I can point to history all the way back to the quasi wars.

Maybe there is a difference in these terms:

- declare war

Vs

- military force used.

Maybe if you tried looking it up, you would find the history and the difference in meaning.

---

Having studied this very thing in a PhD program in history, I don't need to look it up. The Constitution makes no provision for the "use of military force" absent a declaration of war or in adherence to a treaty. In fairness, some doctrine of immediate self-defense must be read into that (obviously, it was constitutional to defend ourselves at Pearl Harbor).

Of course, throughout our history, Congress has let President's usurp its nondelegable war powers. In law school, I took a class with one of the authors of the War Powers Resolution. He acknowledged that the President wasn't constututionally authorized to intiate strikes on his own, but the War Powers Resolution was a practical check on the Imperial Presidency run amok.

It's not worth the time to pull cases individually for you, but here's a good summary from ChatGPT:

Short answer: Sometimes—but only within limits.
American military strikes claimed to be for “humanitarian purposes” are not automatically constitutional. Their legality depends on who authorizes them, how long they last, and whether Congress is involved.
Here’s the constitutional framework, plainly laid out.
1. What the Constitution actually says
Congress
Article I, §8: Congress has the power to declare war, fund the military, and regulate its use.
President
Article II, §2: The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
The Constitution does not explicitly authorize humanitarian war. Any such action must fit within these powers.
2. When humanitarian strikes are considered constitutional
? Clearly constitutional
Humanitarian military action is on solid constitutional ground if:
Congress authorizes it
Either through:
A formal declaration of war, or
A specific Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
Congress funds and does not object to the action.
Example: U.S. interventions explicitly authorized by statute.
?? Legally disputed but historically common
Presidents have repeatedly ordered short, limited strikes without prior congressional approval, arguing they are constitutional if:
The action is limited in scope and duration
It does not rise to “war” in the constitutional sense
It serves U.S. national interests (sometimes framed as humanitarian)
This is the legal rationale used for:
Kosovo (1999)
Libya (2011)
Syria strikes (2017–2018)
Courts have generally avoided ruling on these cases, calling them “political questions.”
3. War Powers Resolution (1973)
This law was Congress’s attempt to rein in unilateral presidential war-making.
It requires:
The President to notify Congress within 48 hours
Military action to end within 60 days (plus 30 for withdrawal)
Unless Congress authorizes it
?? Key point:
Many constitutional scholars argue the War Powers Resolution itself is constitutionally shaky, but presidents usually comply procedurally while disputing its limits.
4. “Humanitarian” purpose alone is not enough
There is no constitutional clause that says:
“The U.S. may use military force abroad to protect civilians or religious groups.”
So:
Humanitarian intent does not create constitutional authority
It must still rest on:
Congressional authorization, or
A narrow commander-in-chief justification
This is especially relevant if the action:
Protects foreign nationals
Occurs in a country not attacking the U.S.
Is open-ended or escalatory
5. What many constitutional scholars agree on
A broad consensus (across ideological lines):
?? Short, defensive, limited actions ? arguably constitutional
?? Sustained bombing campaigns or regime change ? constitutionally suspect without Congress
?? Open-ended “humanitarian” wars without authorization ? likely unconstitutional
Justice Jackson’s famous framework (from Youngstown) is often cited:
Presidential power is lowest when acting against Congress’s will
Strongest when Congress has approved
6. Applying this to claims of protecting Christians (or civilians)
If the U.S. were to strike another country solely to protect a religious group:
? Constitutional only if Congress authorizes it
?? Constitutionally disputed if:
No authorization
No imminent threat to the U.S.
No clear endpoint
Absent congressional approval, such action rests on fragile legal ground.
Bottom line
Humanitarian military strikes are not inherently unconstitutional—but they are not automatically constitutional either.
They require:
Congressional authorization or
A very limited, temporary use of force that stops short of war
Without Congress, sustained or religiously framed military action is constitutionally vulnerable, even if morally argued.
If you’d like, I can also explain:
How courts avoid ruling on war powers
Whether international law changes the analysis
Or how past presidents stretched (or ignored) these limits

quote:

---

Having studied this very thing in a PhD program in history, I don't need to look it up

---

.

“You can’t be right because I’m educated”