Soleimani, the US, and just war
“Over the centuries, Christian thinkers from Augustine to Aquinas to the Reformers—seeking to reconcile Christian teaching on the sanctity of human life with the Christian responsibility to love our neighbors by protecting them from evil—have proposed a set of conditions by which a violent act can be considered justified.” - Christian Post
- 1 view
Blowing people up in foreign lands is clearly regulated by the constitution.
Out of curiosity, what are you referring to in the constitution?
Larry, what Josh is getting at is that if one strictly interprets the Constitution, acts of war are allowed only when (a) war is declared or (b) letters of marque and reprisal are issued, both of those by Congress. Technically, the latter were issued to pirates to do things like chase the Barbary Pirates and steal their ships, but some would argue that the War Powers Act (under which Trump worked) meets these criteria, since it was passed by Congress, and Congress did give permission to act in Iraq.
Josh simply disagrees with that position. I personally do not take a firm stand, except (as I did above) to note that our current treaties make a mess of this.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It boils down to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 vs. Article II Section 2.
Constitutionality has to consider both.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Larry, what Josh is getting at is that if one strictly interprets the Constitution, acts of war are allowed only when (a) war is declared or (b) letters of marque and reprisal are issued, both of those by Congress.
I assumed that was his reference but it was rather vague and given that such a view is not generally sustained during a situation like this, it is certainly not clear. Remember, the right, by and large, thinks this was justified and legal. The left, by and large, thought it was justified and legal until a relatively short time ago (as in several days ago). The libertarians, by and large, have always rejected things like this but there are so few of them. So there really hasn’t been much of a debate about whether this was an appropriate use of power until the left suddenly changed their minds.
It’s seems to me, from my armchair, to consider this an act of war. It targeted a known terrorist who had been consistently engaging in acts of terror against the US. It did not target a nation, even an army or part of a standing force.
Discussion