In my opinion it would be a disaster if you could receive compensation for future policy input, act on that input in office, and be immune simply because you were not in office when you received it.
Just prove he did or did not do it instead of whatever this nonsense take is.
Looks like a computer vision fever dream
I do not think it will be effective. This has been done before in exactly the same way and that failed.
USA allows the deployment of forces with the War Powers Resolution of 1973
Limitations require Congress to be notified and that Congress approves an authorized use of force extension beyond 60 days
No President has followed this procedure in the past 23~ active interventions including the 4 wars that the United States has deployed forces in to this day:
Syria Niger Somalia Yemen
I think you are right about the withdrawing though. I found that this is not the first time Congress has put a treaty withdrawal restriction in a defense authorization bill and it has been ignored in the past with Open Skies.
Office of Legal counsel opinion says Congress does not have power outside of the initial agreement and rules within a given treaty.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/opinions/attachments/2020/12/21/2018-10-17-nafta-wd.pdf
So even though they put this into a bill, if a future President pushes back against it, they likely will win without much trouble at all.
Congress will declare the state of war which is their constitutional power to do so.
SEC. 1250A. LIMITATION ON WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.
(a) OPPOSITION OF CONGRESS TO SUSPENSION, TERMINATION, DENUNCIATION, OR WITHDRAWAL FROM NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY.— The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Wash- ington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(b) LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.—No funds authorized or appropriated by any Act may be used to support, directly or indirectly, any decision on the part of any United States Govern- ment official to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(c) NOTIFICATION OF TREATY ACTION.—
(1) CONSULTATION.—Prior to the notification described in paragraph (2), the President shall consult with the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in relation to any initiative to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty.
(2) NOTIFICATION.—The President shall notify the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in writing of any deliberation or decision to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, as soon as possible but in no event later than 180 days prior to taking such action.
(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize, imply, or otherwise indicate that the Presi- dent may suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw from any treaty to which the Senate has provided its advice and consent without the advice and consent of the Senate to such act or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(e) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this section or the application of such provision is held by a Federal court to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this subtitle and the application of such provisions to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this subtitle, the terms ‘‘withdrawal’’, ‘‘denunciation’’, ‘‘suspension’’, and ‘‘termination’’ have the meaning given the terms in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded at Vienna May 23, 1969.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2670/text
I absolutely hate The Hill simply because they cannot be bothered to take 2 seconds to link to the damn bills they talk about in their articles.
For all I know they could talk about Congress passing a bill ratifying that the color of the sky shall be considered Red and the reader has no idea if it is true or not.
If you watch their hearings and assemblies a lot of Congress appears to be focused on trying to get sound bytes and Tik Tok clips out of what they say. The clips just seem so weird and forced when seen in context of what the topic of discussion is.
We didn't elect people to be actors on the clock, please make law and talk to the press later.
This is a ridiculously off target response
OK then.
Let's sit down and read the actual amendment instead of taking out of context a section of some news quote which is likeky already out of context by said news before you shortened it.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/118th-congress/house-report/142
At the end of subtitle G of title X, insert the following:
SEC. 5__. PROTECTION OF IDEOLOGICAL FREEDOM.
Section 2001 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
(c) Protection of Ideological Freedom.--(1) No employee of the Department of Defense or of a military department, including any member of the armed forces, may compel, teach, instruct, or train any member of the armed forces, whether serving on active duty, serving in a reserve component, attending a military service academy, or attending a course conducted by a military department pursuant to a Reserve Officer Corps Training program, to believe any of the politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4).
(2) No employee of the Department of Defense or of a military department, including any member of the armed forces may be compelled to declare a belief in, or adherence to, or participate in training or education of any kind that promotes any of the politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4) a condition of recruitment, retention, promotion, transfer, assignment, or other favorable personnel action.
(3) The Department of Defense and the military departments may not promote race-based or ideological concepts that promote the differential treatment of any individual or groups of individuals based on race, color, sex, or national origin, including any of politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4).
(4) A politically-based concept referred to in this paragraph is any of the following:
(A) Members of one race, color, sex, or national
origin are morally superior to members of another race,
color, sex, or national origin.
(B) An individual, by virtue of his or her race,
color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist,
sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or
unconsciously.
(C) An individual's moral character or status as
either privileged or oppressed is necessarily
determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national
origin.
(D) Members of one race, color, sex, or national
origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others
without respect to race, color, sex, or national
origin.
(E) An individual, by virtue of his or her race,
color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility
for, or should be discriminated against or receive
adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the
past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or
national origin.
(F) An individual, by virtue of his or her race,
color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated
against or receive adverse treatment to achieve
diversity, equity, or inclusion.
(G) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt,
anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race, color, sex, or national
origin.
(H) Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work,
fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial
colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by
members of a particular race, color, sex, or national
origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex,
or national origin.
(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as compelling any individual to believe or refrain from believing in any politically-based concept referred to in paragraph (4) in their private and personal capacity.''.
----------
The user interface in my opinion is pretty bad. It looks like old reddit which wasn't that good. I have to manually expand each post to view it instead of just scrolling through.
Kbin is mostly better. But still a little rough on a few points.
Reddit in desktop mode is better.
Sync in card view mode was the best. Still looking for that experience.
Deleware River that is as wide as a 33+ lane highway is not a natural border? Wacky.