Trump says he bombed Iran

[DBCowboy]

An executive order against a constitutional amendment. I agree we need to address birthright citizenship, but a President making an executive order against a constitutional amendments shouldn't last 15 minutes. It's a bad precedence.

FISA

Blanket tariffs on every country. This has proven to be illegal. President has a scope for national security, and that's so that we can be nimble as foreign policy happens fast. But going against all nations shouldn't be decided by one person.

Going after people, citizens or not, for speech against another nation that we don't have any formal treaties with.

Allowing private AI companies to go into our files at the federal government.

Those are the ones I can think off the top of my head.

FISA has been around since 1979.

An EO spurs the legal mechanism to change birthright citizenship the right way

[ReturnofBroccoli]

My problem is the constitution and bill of rights say absolutely NOTHING about broccoli kind

[CriticalStinker]

Why not 50/50

Congress should vote on that, I agree.

Just like Congress should vote on major wars, especially offensive ones.

There are some things one person isn’t supposed to decide, that’s why the founding fathers made separate branches of government with checks and balances. But the executive has gotten used to abusing power while Congress just ignores it because they’d rather fly under the radar than vote for unpopular wars.

This isn’t new and has been done for decades, but that doesn’t justify it now or make it any more constitutional.

[DBCowboy]

My problem is the constitution and bill of rights say absolutely NOTHING about broccoli kind

The Founding Fathers weren't big on Broccoli.

So, um, no rights for you.

[CriticalStinker]

FISA has been around since 1979.

An EO spurs the legal mechanism to change birthright citizenship the right way

I agree, much of the abuse has happened for decades.

And I disagree that presidents challenging amendments is dealing with it the right way.

For one, Supreme Court doesn’t make amendments, they interpret them. Congress makes and changes laws. They are the constitutional power to deal with amendments.

[DBCowboy]

Congress should vote on that, I agree.

Just like Congress should vote on major wars, especially offensive ones.

There are some things one person isn’t supposed to decide, that’s why the founding fathers made separate branches of government with checks and balances. But the executive has gotten used to abusing power while Congress just ignores it because they’d rather fly under the radar than vote for unpopular wars.

This isn’t new and has been done for decades, but that doesn’t justify it now or make it any more constitutional.

The way our congress is, we'd hand Iran nukes.

Agree or disagree.

[CriticalStinker]

The way our congress is, we'd hand Iran nukes.

Agree or disagree.

Disagree. All of our domestic intelligence said they weren’t as close as other foreign intelligence.

[DBCowboy]

I agree, much of the abuse has happened for decades.

And I disagree that presidents challenging amendments is dealing with it the right way.

For one, Supreme Court doesn’t make amendments, they interpret them. Congress makes and changes laws. They are the constitutional power to deal with amendments.

So you just like HOW he challenged it.

[DBCowboy]

Disagree. All of our domestic intelligence said they weren’t as close as other foreign intelligence.

So you'd be okay allowing them to sponsor terrorism throughout the globe and then eventually get nukes?

[CriticalStinker]

So you just like HOW he challenged it.

Making an executive order trying to negate an amendment is the most direct challenge I can think of.