Home | About | Donate

Citing 'Unpredictable and Rash' Trump, Democratic Bill Would Restrict Presidential Nuclear First-Strike Authority


Citing 'Unpredictable and Rash' Trump, Democratic Bill Would Restrict Presidential Nuclear First-Strike Authority

Julia Conley, staff writer

A bill introduced by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) won applause from anti-war groups on Tuesday, as the congressmen called on Congress to pass legislation prohibiting any U.S. president from launching a preemptive nuclear strike—while some anti-nuclear campaigners warned that the proposal is only the bare minimum that can be done to avoid nuclear war.



I take note of the fact that the Constitution’s vesting of the war-making power in Congress has been all but a dead letter for decades, but fortunately (or not!), given two-plus years of the Twump Pwesidency, Brand D has finally rediscovered it as an issue of importance. (sigh)



Congress abdicated their Constitutional authority to declare wars when they committed treason by calling the Korean war: " a police action" and ever since then, Amerika has become a military dictatorship, dictated by fascists.



What a farce! What the hell is wrong with Lieu and Markey? Congressional Democrats please stop your tap dancing and do your job you were hired for: INVOKE THE 25TH AMENDMENT!

1 Like


Damn good question!

1 Like


Why does the electorate elect these idiots is my question.



Because they generally have more money to spend than others. Plus gerrymandering.

I’m more worried about Trump talking out of ass as usual. Just making a threat of the use of nukes to the wrong party could be devastating



Right. Everybody is an idiot. Who could disagree?

But I don’t understand the discussion here. What is the advantage in calling two guys who want to withdraw power from the nutty president and give it back to Congress idiots?

Couldn’t the result of this point of view be that Trump is more likely to end the world?

And if someone, anyone, is going to allude to some part of the Constitution, why don’t they make an attempt to explain what’s in it?

This discussion as it appears in these posts is too chaotic.

The guys are idiots because, even though their proposal is better than the status quo, it isn’t perfect, is that it?



I had heard one reason for that was to keep costs down at the VA—WW 1&2 vets good, “police action” vets not good.

Your citing that time frame sounds right.



It does not matter if the use of nuclear weapons is against international law, we will all be just as dead.
The military pressured JFK to okay a first nuclear strike against Russia . They said that 10 million dead Americans would be acceptable. JFK walked out on them. We can hope that the military of today is more knowledgeable of the devastation of the population and environment that would result from the use of nuclear weapons. However, Trump is no JFK and is functionally unstable, get the nuclear option out of his hands.
Since Putin and Trump are bosom buddies , who will Trump bomb?



“Congress has the constitutional duty to decide when a nuclear first strike is warranted…”

A nuclear first strike is never warranted!



Any measure that can help reverse or at least halt the trend towards nuclear war is welcome. All the evidence points to another world war. The pattern of history is quite clear, the signs are ominous.