Congress has approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an Act of Congress. The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    7 months ago

    e to an ally’s aid if attacked,” why would anyone fear NATO, regardless of what obligations still exist on paper? … When I asked several people with deep links to NATO to imagine what would happen

    So should the president be commander-in-chief or not? Normally liberals aren’t quite so mask-off and in favor of a military junta, but please, tell me how you square this circle.

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Normally liberals aren’t quite so mask-off … please, tell me how you square this circle.

      Sorry, not American, so I found your question confusing.

      From the article above:

      The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.),

      Both parties seem to be in favour of limiting the power of the president to withdraw from NATO.

      This doesn’t seem to be a simple partisan issue, as this legislation has bipartisan support.

      • Pretzilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The R’s support the measure because it makes electing the Orange Julias more palatable to wish wash

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        7 months ago

        If you are viewing actions of the legislature strictly through a partisan lens, you dont’ have enough background to approach the original concern at all.

        The original idea of the US government is three branches of government. If one branch of government “bipartisananly” wants to limit another branch of government, that should be cause for alarm and ideally the congressmen involved should be censured and possibly impeached. If you want to change the powers of the president, then it’s time to rewrite the constitution, not do whatever the fuck this is.

        • invno1@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          No, you are missing the entire point of three branches of government. They are there as a check and balance of power to the others. They are literally supposed to stop the other branches from overstepping.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            7 months ago

            It’s been established that the president is in charge of foreign treaties. So it is congress that is overstepping here.

        • arquebus_x@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Do you disapprove of the idea that SCOTUS can decide constitutionality? It’s not in the constitution, so when they first did it, it was a “limit” on another branch of government.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        7 months ago

        Look if you are restructuring your entire government because orange-man bad, perhaps it’s time to question the initial foundation of that government.