A Failure of Democracy

[phyllo]

Can you say "special military operation"?

Is this what you believe it to be? A "special military operation"? I'm not familiar with US terms on that, so I'm sincerely asking.

I believe Trump uses weasel words to get around the constraints that the constitution places on his powers.

[Gary Childress]

EVERY HUMAN BEING has rights to due process and fair treatment by the government.

"Fair"? What is "fair" for what you call an "unlawful" foreign invader? What "process" is due to somebody who invades your country, in an "unlawful" way?

I think incarceration, followed by deportation, is really a good deal. It's certainly proportional, humane and deserved. Some countries, like Socialist ones, traditionally just shoot border-jumpers.

the UDHR.

Has nothing to it. Nobody can explain what legitimizes anything the UN decides, let alone a claim to "human rights." The UN itself, too, has been pretty awful on living up to its own demands.

Okay, Gary...let's make this simple by making it unfettered by US particulars.

You're in a democratic country, let's say. Let's say it's not the US. You're in Canada, or Australia, or Holland...you pick it.
There are two political parties in the country. Let's call them X and Y. Or three, if you like: X, Y and Z.
Y is elected by a majority of over 50%, in an open election.
What makes Y's election "undemocratic"?

Per usual IC detests the UN and human rights, almost as much as he does "socialists". I thought, according to you, it was only atheists who had no moral sensibilities. So what happened to yours Mr. follower of Christ?

[phyllo]

You're in a democratic country, let's say. Let's say it's not the US. You're in Canada, or Australia, or Holland...you pick it.
There are two political parties in the country. Let's call them X and Y. Or three, if you like: X, Y and Z.
Y is elected by a majority of over 50%, in an open election.
What makes Y's election "undemocratic"?

In 2024, Trump got 49.8% of the popular vote.

Therefore, he did not meet the 50% threshold for a democratic election.

[thomyum2]

Ummm...no. "Unlawful" migrants have no guarantees under the American constitution.

Actually, that's not correct. Many of the so-called 'rights' under American law are codified in the constitution as limitations on the powers of government, not as privileges granted to individuals. Constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and others are guaranteed to all individuals regardless of citizenship or immigration status because the government may not pass laws or otherwise use it powers to infringe on those rights.

But I never accused that government of failing to have been elected by democratic mandate, or to be the temporarily-legit government of my country, just because at least half of the people in my country voted badly.

So why do you? I'm going to need some evidence of "undemocratic" there.

Truthfully, I think it's questionable whether the US election process can really be called 'democratic' at all. In 3 out of the last 7 US elections, the individual elected did not receive a majority of the votes cast, and in 2 of those cases, they didn't even win a plurality. Trump has never been elected by a majority of the votes, let alone a majority of the population.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you say "special military operation"?

Is this what you believe it to be? A "special military operation"? I'm not familiar with US terms on that, so I'm sincerely asking.

I believe Trump uses weasel words to get around the constraints that the constitution places on his powers.

"I believe"? Do you have any evidence of that...things that are actually illegal, I mean? If he's withink his powers to do "special military operations," what makes this one more wrong than, say, the Bush operation in Iraq and the Obama and Biden activities in Afghanistan?

[Gary Childress]

Is this what you believe it to be? A "special military operation"? I'm not familiar with US terms on that, so I'm sincerely asking.

I believe Trump uses weasel words to get around the constraints that the constitution places on his powers.

"I believe"? Do you have any evidence of that...things that are actually illegal, I mean? If he's withink his powers to do "special military operations," what makes this one more wrong than, say, the Bush operation in Iraq and the Obama and Biden activities in Afghanistan?

THEY WERE ALL WRONG! SMH! Albeit, Obama and Biden didn't initiate any wars that weren't already underway from Bush's terms.

[Immanuel Can]

Per usual IC detests the UN

Well, the UN is pretty awful, you have to admit. And expensive for your country, too. It's a stupid organization, really...and today it's dominated by Fabian-types.

...and human rights...

Actually, I'm a huge advocate of human rights. I always have been. But being supportive of human rights means you have to make them durable. The only durable human rights are going to be those grounded in rationality, not those merely asserted gratuitously by one or another faction, whether the UN or America or whatever.

So what is the basis of your belief in human rights, Gary? Mine is that man was made by God, and in the image of God, and for His purposes. The buck stops there. Where does the buck stop for human rights in your view?

I thought, according to you, it was only atheists who had no moral sensibilities.

I've never said that, of course. And I think you know that, too. But I have pointed out that Atheism gives them no grounds for such, which is true. So what's your problem? If you have an Atheistic grounding for human rights, just provide it, and everybody will know I'm wrong.

Go ahead.

[phyllo]

Do you have any evidence of that...things that are actually illegal, I mean? If he's withink his powers to do "special military operations," what makes this one more wrong than, say, the Bush operation in Iraq and the Obama and Biden activities in Afghanistan?

AI Overview

President George W. Bush did not declare war, as that power belongs solely to Congress, but he launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without a formal declaration. Instead, Congress passed joint resolutions—the AUMF of 2001 for Afghanistan and the 2002 Iraq Resolution for Iraq—authorizing the use of military force, which acted as legal authorization.

Afghanistan (2001): Following the 9/11 attacks, Congress authorized the use of force against those responsible, which was passed nearly unanimously.

Iraq (2003): Congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" with bipartisan support.

Legal Standing: The U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have generally supported the idea that Congressional authorization (AUMF) suffices for military action, satisfying constitutional requirements without a formal "declaration of war".

War Powers: While the Constitution splits war powers, no formal declaration of war has been issued by Congress since World War II.

AI Overview

No, Congress did not approve the February 2026 military strikes against Iran. President Trump ordered the attacks on Iranian facilities without prior congressional authorization, bypassing a formal vote. While top lawmakers were notified beforehand, the administration acted under executive authority and the War Powers Act, with a House resolution to end the action subsequently failing.

No Formal Approval: Congress did not pass a vote or Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for the attacks.

Administration Action: The White House launched the strikes against Iranian military facilities, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating the administration fulfilled required notifications, even as the action bypassed congressional authorization.

War Powers Conflict: The move raised constitutional issues regarding Congress's sole power to declare war, though the administration maintained the strikes were not "acts of war" needing prior approval.

Failed Constraints: The House of Representatives later narrowly rejected a resolution designed to end the U.S. military engagement in Iran, effectively allowing the military action to continue without formal congressional approval.

[Immanuel Can]

I believe Trump uses weasel words to get around the constraints that the constitution places on his powers.

"I believe"? Do you have any evidence of that...things that are actually illegal, I mean? If he's withink his powers to do "special military operations," what makes this one more wrong than, say, the Bush operation in Iraq and the Obama and Biden activities in Afghanistan?

THEY WERE ALL WRONG!

Oh. So your theory is that there is no such thing as a just war, or a necessary military conflict? You're a 100% pacifist? Honest question.

[Immanuel Can]

AI Overview

No thank you. I never trust AI. You shouldn't, either.

Just type in "dangers of trusting AI," and AI will tell you.

[Immanuel Can]

Ummm...no. "Unlawful" migrants have no guarantees under the American constitution.

Actually, that's not correct. Many of the so-called 'rights' under American law are codified in the constitution as limitations on the powers of government, not as privileges granted to individuals.

Yes, but so what?

Constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and others are guaranteed to all individuals regardless of citizenship or immigration status

Please quote the constitutional section that says this. I'm unaware of it.

But I never accused that government of failing to have been elected by democratic mandate, or to be the temporarily-legit government of my country, just because at least half of the people in my country voted badly.

So why do you? I'm going to need some evidence of "undemocratic" there.

Truthfully, I think it's questionable whether the US election process can really be called 'democratic' at all. In 3 out of the last 7 US elections, the individual elected did not receive a majority of the votes cast, and in 2 of those cases, they didn't even win a plurality. Trump has never been elected by a majority of the votes, let alone a majority of the population.

Actually, that's incorrect. But let's ask a very Leftist source, just so you don't doubt me.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/resul ... ning=false

[phyllo]

No thank you. I never trust AI. You shouldn't, either.

Look it up yourself.

The Supreme Court has long construed the Declare War Clause to mean not only that Congress can issue formal declarations of war, but also that it can authorize the use of armed force for more limited operations short of a full-scale war.1 Congress has, on various occasions, passed what have become known as authorizations for the use of military force (or AUMFs), which permit the President to use United States military forces in pursuit of set objectives and within defined parameters.2 Early examples include congressional authorization to protect American commercial vessels from pirates and hostile foreign countries.3 Since the Second World War, Congress has not formally declared war, and AUMFs have become its predominant method to authorize hostilities. For example, Congress passed and the President signed into law statutory authorization during the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War of 1991, the post-September 11, 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 Iraq War.4

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... force-aumf

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ ... publ40.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-con ... n/114/text

[phyllo]

Actually, that's incorrect. But let's ask a very Leftist source, just so you don't doubt me.

What's incorrect?

Trump was not elected by majority vote in both 2016 and 2024 elections. Fact.

[Immanuel Can]

No thank you. I never trust AI. You shouldn't, either.

Look it up yourself.

The Supreme Court has long construed the Declare War Clause to mean not only that Congress can issue formal declarations of war,

This doesn't actually help. We need to know the status of "special military actions." That was the term that was used.

[thomyum2]

Ummm...no. "Unlawful" migrants have no guarantees under the American constitution.

Actually, that's not correct. Many of the so-called 'rights' under American law are codified in the constitution as limitations on the powers of government, not as privileges granted to individuals.

Yes, but so what?

Well, it's an issue recently because many immigrants (both lawful and unlawful) as well as US citizens have reportedly had those rights infringed by the current administration.

Constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and others are guaranteed to all individuals regardless of citizenship or immigration status

Please quote the constitutional section that says this. I'm unaware of it.

An example is the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But I never accused that government of failing to have been elected by democratic mandate, or to be the temporarily-legit government of my country, just because at least half of the people in my country voted badly.

So why do you? I'm going to need some evidence of "undemocratic" there.

Truthfully, I think it's questionable whether the US election process can really be called 'democratic' at all. In 3 out of the last 7 US elections, the individual elected did not receive a majority of the votes cast, and in 2 of those cases, they didn't even win a plurality. Trump has never been elected by a majority of the votes, let alone a majority of the population.

Actually, that's incorrect. But let's ask a very Leftist source, just so you don't doubt me.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/resul ... ning=false

That link shows that Trump received less than 50% of the popular vote - so not a majority by my understanding of the terms. I agree he was legally elected, just not by a majority of the voters.