Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Im2bored17 t1_j9d4pjv wrote

Reply to comment by scottydg in UK calls on IOC to maintain Olympic ban on Russian and Belarusian athletes by rejs7

IIRC war requires an act of congress but the president can send troops wherever he wants for whatever reason, as long as the reason isn't "war".

6

scottydg t1_j9d6ndx wrote

Exactly. There are limitations to what the President can do as the Commander in Chief, but sending troops to places within the restrictions of the defense budget or what Congress authorizes through what has lately been the AUMF (Authorization of Military Force). These things are not "War", however.

6

michael_harari t1_j9f4n6l wrote

Maybe not war according to American law, but it's still a war.

5

scottydg t1_j9fklat wrote

Yep, I agree. There's a reason everyone was saying "the war in Afghanistan and Iraq", "Vietnam war", whatever you want to call those "conflicts", they were wars.

1

xixi2 t1_j9f4s2u wrote

The Judicial Branch is filled with lawyers and judges. The legislative branch is filled with politicians. I always thought the executive branch would logically be military (I mean it was for our first president I guess), not just more politicians that switched jobs

2

scottydg t1_j9fkdmk wrote

It is. The President is the Commander in Chief, who outranks everyone in the military, orders them to do things, all that. Congress controls spending and has the exclusive right to declare "War", which the President then uses to act with more power than under normal circumstances.

0

xixi2 t1_j9flb40 wrote

Yes I know. Which is why I meant like military officers should be the people we choose for the presidency. Not congress people that decided they wanna be president

1