I was thinking today about forums outside the US. There is always talk that the US violates treaty restrictions on how to wage conflict.
Let us assume treaties are not political BS and treaties allow people to seek legal remedies in the country violating the treaty. Normally in the US, you can address treaties that way.
Here is my argument. As the commander in chief by the constitution, nothing can confine the president's ability to wage war. Because of the AUMF, he could drop a nuclear bomb on Paris right this minute in an effort to wage war against terrorist groups. It would be constitutional and no treaty would apply that could limit his actions.
Do any developed nations have similar systems? In any western European country, do their governments have a legal mechanism that automatically kicks in?
Let us assume treaties are not political BS and treaties allow people to seek legal remedies in the country violating the treaty. Normally in the US, you can address treaties that way.
Here is my argument. As the commander in chief by the constitution, nothing can confine the president's ability to wage war. Because of the AUMF, he could drop a nuclear bomb on Paris right this minute in an effort to wage war against terrorist groups. It would be constitutional and no treaty would apply that could limit his actions.
Do any developed nations have similar systems? In any western European country, do their governments have a legal mechanism that automatically kicks in?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1ATYofK
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire