• Andonyx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    This isn’t anything new or specific to Trump. He can veto this like any other measure and the veto can be overriden With a 2/3 majority vote in Congress. That’s how it’s always worked.

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      95
      ·
      5 days ago

      The way it’s always worked is the president can’t unilaterally declare war. Let’s not pretend we are still bound by precedent or rules anymore.

    • potpotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      5 days ago

      Takes 51% to allow the prez to declare war or 67% to stop the prez from unilaterally declaring war? Dumb.

    • notacat@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      That’s how it’s always worked

      …since 1983 when the supreme court decided the legislative branch did not have the power to veto the president. Even when congress was the one to delegate the power in the first place.

      See: Immigration and Naturalization Service V. Chadha

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 days ago

      @ChonkyOwlbear makes a very good point: the idea that the burden is on Congress to disapprove of the war and that Trump can veto their disapproval is completely ass-backwards, if you really think about it, and its absurd that the media and/or general public is treating it as anything remotely resembling business as usual.

      (This isn’t meant to be a criticism of @Andronyx individually, BTW. I can’t blame them for falling for the same logical sleight of hand as almost everybody else.)