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.

      • Anticorp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        A second term trump? Of course it would be worse. A second term trump facing like a hundred different felony charges? Yes, definitely much worse.

  • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    1 year ago

    Serious question, if the orange dictator returns to power does this actually…you know…stop him in anyway? What happens if he just does it anyway? It’s not like there will be any consequences…

  • jaybone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    And if Trump wants, he asks his stacked SCOTUS to declare it unconstitutional, and withdraws from NATO. Zzz

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This bill violates the president’s first amendment right to free speech because forcing him to do it is tantamount to forcing him to say he’s okay with doing it.

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Only a fascist trying to be a dictator would actually do this.

    Sounds like rather than patchwork mini laws like this, they need to revamp the system to ensure no single person can take such drastic overreaching action.

    Lets not forget that a president/prime minister isn’t the singular person in charge, they’re merely the figurehead/frontman of an entire government of elected people, as well add representing their party, and of course ultimately are a civil servant working at the pleasure of the people.

    95% of the things the president does should go through proper democratic channels within the government and not simply rubber stamped by a single person, that path is the path towards dictatorship.

    The few exceptions are rare things that can’t be put to a vote or through regular channels, like launching nukes, etc. But these are exceptions only.

    There should never have been a situation where it was possible for a president to personally decide to change the future of the entire nation and indeed world, in such a dramatic and drastic way, without any checks and balances to ensure that it is the will of the people, out even the will of anyone else in government.

    Which is why it sounds to me like they need some significant reform, rather than just making this one little change :-(

    • Duralf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, past presidents have gradually expanded the power of the position beyond any reasonableness over time.

  • vivadanang@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    fuck we might succeed and get trump back, quick put up the child safeties!

  • Kedly@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Damn, usually ml is at least SLIGHTLY better than hexbear, but not when it comes to anything that might be bad for Russia I see

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m actually extremely worried about this constitutional overreach. Under many sane readings of the constitution, this isn’t a power congress has. The president has a few unilateral powers in order to check the mob rules (or rather the external capture of congress.)

    Ideally a president should be able to unilaterally dissolve all alliances and other undue foreign influence on our legislature. Otherwise there is no way to recover form this sham of democracy.

    • lemmyman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was about to ask if, since you’re “extremely worried” about this (seemingly esoteric) potentially unconstitutional move, how you cope with the rest of the world.

      Then I saw the second paragraph and it seems that you don’t.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        What? The idea of the president being in charge of foreign policy isn’t abnormal unless you think that history started when you were born.

        • Elderos@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is funny because it is the opposite actually. Former senates and presidents actually clashed over foreign policies, it is only in recent times that presidents were more or less left to decide. So, I guess there is a bit of projection going on here.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Social media’s understanding of law:

      GOOD: “My guy does it.”

      BAD: “The other guy does it.”