word he would be advocating the invasion of an allied nation which is grounds for expulsion from the senate
Citation needed. AFAIK, the Senate is allowed to discuss whether a nation should be considered an ally, and whether or not to invade a sovereign nation.
Or did you mean he would be “recalled” (by his constituents) rather than “expelled” (by his fellow senators)?
There is no real law or regulation for when the house or senate expels one of their own, though 17 people have been expelled historically, but there was recent talks of expelling Tlaib for using the word Genocide in May. Or did you want a citation for Genocide being acceptable cause to invade as it relates to the United Nations and International Law?
Tlaib wasn’t censured for using the word “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions toward Palestinians. She was censured for repeating the slogan “from the river to the sea”, which has been described as “nothing else but the call for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews”.
She was only censured because a sufficient number of Democrats agreed with Republicans to issue a censure. None of those Democrats would support a Republican call for her expulsion.
My point is that Bernie is free to call it a genocide if he wants to. He’s free to call for American military intervention against Israel if he wants to.
There is a huge constitutional issue with the expulsion of a legislator for making a statement that is well within the scope of their constitutional duties.
I don’t need evidence of genocide being considered justification to intervene. I readily concede that point. My concern here is the constitutional issue that would arise if a legislator is effectively prohibited from representing their constituency, including a constituency that thinks Israel is engaged in Genocide.
You’re out of touch with reality if you think Bernie will get nothing more than a stern talking to for asking for a foreign force to invade Israel. I get it, dude, I really do: I think the USA should depose Netanyahu and take control of the situation themselves, honestly, but support for Palestine is not universal and is in short supply in the US Congress.
He certainly will face severe consequences: from his constituents. They could recall him, or replace him in the next election. He faces consequences from the Democratic party: they can refuse to support his re-election.
He faces serious consequences from the people he represents, but not from the Senate or the federal government.
Censure is nothing. It carries no penalty. Democratic support for Tlaib’s censure was easy to give because it carried no actual cost. There is no way that Democratic support for censure would translate to support for her expulsion. A legislator who isn’t facing censure just isn’t trying hard enough.
Bernie is free to call it a genocide if he wants. The fact that he isn’t (ostensibly) tells us that his constituency doesn’t want him to do that.
My response was to a comment that did nothing to further your position whatsoever:
“Your opinions don’t represent reality.”
That comment does not address anything about Bernie Sanders, genocide, expulsion, censure, or any other topic previously raised. That comment wasn’t your first ad hominem argument; you previously declared I was “out of touch with reality”. I ignored the ad hominem part and focused solely on the actual issue. With your second, there was no actual issue to continue the argument: just the ad hominem. With nothing else to address, I merely needed to identify it as such to discredit it.
Your on-topic argument is based primarily on the false idea that Tlaib was censured for calling Israel’s actions a “genocide”. That is not true. The Democratic legislators who joined the Republicans in censuring her cited not “genocide”, but “from the river to the sea”, which they deemed to be a call for the destruction of Israel and the murdering of Jews.
The remainder of your argument is based on the idea that the UN deems “genocide” to be an act that justifies military intervention. You presented the idea that a senator could be expelled for suggesting military intervention should be used against an “ally”. You have yet to provide any sort of citation or other support for that point. You pivoted instead to Tlaib’s censure, without further addressing that point.
I have argued that the Senate is specifically empowered to discuss military intervention, including intervention against an ally. I will generally cite Article I, Section 8 of the constitution to support that point.
I would say that if a senator is expelled for doing something the Senate is specifically empowered to do, everyone who supports such an expulsion is an enemy of the constitution, and we have much, much bigger problems to contend with than the Israel/Palestine debate.
Citation needed. AFAIK, the Senate is allowed to discuss whether a nation should be considered an ally, and whether or not to invade a sovereign nation.
Or did you mean he would be “recalled” (by his constituents) rather than “expelled” (by his fellow senators)?
There is no real law or regulation for when the house or senate expels one of their own, though 17 people have been expelled historically, but there was recent talks of expelling Tlaib for using the word Genocide in May. Or did you want a citation for Genocide being acceptable cause to invade as it relates to the United Nations and International Law?
Tlaib wasn’t censured for using the word “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions toward Palestinians. She was censured for repeating the slogan “from the river to the sea”, which has been described as “nothing else but the call for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews”.
She was only censured because a sufficient number of Democrats agreed with Republicans to issue a censure. None of those Democrats would support a Republican call for her expulsion.
My point is that Bernie is free to call it a genocide if he wants to. He’s free to call for American military intervention against Israel if he wants to.
There is a huge constitutional issue with the expulsion of a legislator for making a statement that is well within the scope of their constitutional duties.
I don’t need evidence of genocide being considered justification to intervene. I readily concede that point. My concern here is the constitutional issue that would arise if a legislator is effectively prohibited from representing their constituency, including a constituency that thinks Israel is engaged in Genocide.
You’re out of touch with reality if you think Bernie will get nothing more than a stern talking to for asking for a foreign force to invade Israel. I get it, dude, I really do: I think the USA should depose Netanyahu and take control of the situation themselves, honestly, but support for Palestine is not universal and is in short supply in the US Congress.
He certainly will face severe consequences: from his constituents. They could recall him, or replace him in the next election. He faces consequences from the Democratic party: they can refuse to support his re-election.
He faces serious consequences from the people he represents, but not from the Senate or the federal government.
Censure is nothing. It carries no penalty. Democratic support for Tlaib’s censure was easy to give because it carried no actual cost. There is no way that Democratic support for censure would translate to support for her expulsion. A legislator who isn’t facing censure just isn’t trying hard enough.
Bernie is free to call it a genocide if he wants. The fact that he isn’t (ostensibly) tells us that his constituency doesn’t want him to do that.
Your opinions don’t represent reality.
Ad hominem.
You say that as if I didn’t already argue the same baseless assertion you made multiple times.
My response was to a comment that did nothing to further your position whatsoever:
That comment does not address anything about Bernie Sanders, genocide, expulsion, censure, or any other topic previously raised. That comment wasn’t your first ad hominem argument; you previously declared I was “out of touch with reality”. I ignored the ad hominem part and focused solely on the actual issue. With your second, there was no actual issue to continue the argument: just the ad hominem. With nothing else to address, I merely needed to identify it as such to discredit it.
Your on-topic argument is based primarily on the false idea that Tlaib was censured for calling Israel’s actions a “genocide”. That is not true. The Democratic legislators who joined the Republicans in censuring her cited not “genocide”, but “from the river to the sea”, which they deemed to be a call for the destruction of Israel and the murdering of Jews.
The remainder of your argument is based on the idea that the UN deems “genocide” to be an act that justifies military intervention. You presented the idea that a senator could be expelled for suggesting military intervention should be used against an “ally”. You have yet to provide any sort of citation or other support for that point. You pivoted instead to Tlaib’s censure, without further addressing that point.
I have argued that the Senate is specifically empowered to discuss military intervention, including intervention against an ally. I will generally cite Article I, Section 8 of the constitution to support that point.
I would say that if a senator is expelled for doing something the Senate is specifically empowered to do, everyone who supports such an expulsion is an enemy of the constitution, and we have much, much bigger problems to contend with than the Israel/Palestine debate.