So he gets to flaunt the law because he's vindictive? Not a system I wanna live in.

That's why I'm worried. To me it's obvious he was extremely upset with all those court cases against him, and now the courts and the Fed Chair are just straight ignoring him. So is Putin.

Yeah I get personally being worried but it's a weird thing to post online because the implication shared is that it'd be better if he [was allowed to]* just abuse emergency powers.

*edit

What’s the alternative? Roll over and let him do whatever he wants?

You have to force the issue. At the end of the day, congress will either stand by and allow the president to ignore the court, arrest judges, send his flying monkeys to intimidate them… or not.

If the president doesn’t back down, we’ve crossed the rubicon.

We already crossed that rubicon Jan 6th

I was going to say, now is the best tome to double down and escalate. Never back down.

In the US the president doesn't have the authority to start a war.

Congress has the exclusive power to declare wars per the constitution.)

(Obviously, in practice that's about as relevant congress having the sole authority over taxes, including tariffs.)

Starting a war and declaring a war are not the same thing. The president absolutely has the power to start wars.

If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does it have?

See my parenthetical remark, and my follow-up comment about 'special military operations' at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44121957

To make it short, I agree with you.

The US hasn't declared war since 1942. They seem to have fought a few large ones since then.

Those were all "Special Operations"

He only has to notify Congress within 48 hours, and if they don't approve it, those troops can stay deployed for up to 60 days. I'm just saying, he has already shown he's very interested in finding every loophole possible.

For people who may not know about this, it is in fact law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

“Finding every loophole” implies he cares.

Whatever they say always appears to be post-hoc rationalization to explain what would otherwise be illegal actions.

They seem to have mostly given up on caring to find such things ahead of time.

Oh, but isn't that law just for 'special military operations'? It's not proper 'war'?

(I agree that in practice, a war is a war, whether your nation's laws officially call it as such or not doesn't make much of a difference.)

The last time America formally declared a war was 1942. Every war since then has been various shades of "special military operation".

At least the American public does recognize them as wars, so there's that at least.

> At least the American public does recognize them as wars, so there's that at least.

I'm not sure this is accurate.

We have plenty of "wars" that aren't wars. Such as the annual "war on Christmas".

Do we recognize them as "wars"? Or do we just use the word?

Metaphors are a thing. People can (mostly) tell the difference between a literal war and a metaphorical war.

I say '(mostly)' because while the 'war on Christmas' and WWII are clear cut cases, the war on drugs is an example that sometimes skirts closer to the border. Though it's still very much a metaphorical war.

Innocent people are already being abused by the tariffs.