Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Trump Lawyer Says Having Political Rival Killed Could Constitute 'Official' Presidential Act [View all]malthaussen
(17,317 posts)Once you start dropping drones on wedding parties as "lawful" acts against Terrorism, the line separating the foreign adversary from the domestic one becomes blurred. Obviously, for DJT and his ilk, there is no such line. And the Oath of Office does state that it is one's responsibility to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic." That little loophole is just begging to be exploited. Who determines who is an "enemy" of the Constitution? And if someone is determined to be a enemy of same, what, if any, limits apply to supporting and defending it? Moreover, what actions, if not taken, would constitute dereliction of duty to "support and defend?" I mean, the argument can be made that if one doesn't call for a hit on an enemy of the Constitution, he is negligent and liable for not doing due diligence to fulfill his oath.
Now, it can be argued that it was the intent of the Framers that Congress should determine who is an enemy of the US, which is why they alone were given the authority to declare war. The Framers did not anticipate the complexities of modern times, or the eager cravenness that led Congress to surrender that authority to the President, basically establishing that the Executive can carry out acts of war against anyone he damn well pleases under the extended application of the Authorization of Use of Force. I'm sure they would bleat and protest that there was no intent that it be used domestically, or against American citizens, but that's really a feeble protest. Behold the unintended consequences, which it is the duty of the USSC to mitigate, but who knows what they'll do in the end?
-- Mal