Even if this is the editorial board, these are all unrelated topics where, yes, they could have done better, but perhaps it was the naivety of the time. And it’s definitely not as if they’re a pro-Trump news outlet.

Here ya go. It’s another opinion piece by, if you’re familiar with the NYT, you guessed it!

archive.ph/…/iran-military-strike-trump.html

Edit: whoops its older than just today, that mighta thrown off your search.

Democrats could file a TRO in federal court immediately asking to pause operations & that his actions violate Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. But they almost certainly won’t, and they want you believing exactly what you do now, which is “our hands are tied, nothing we can do, send money & then we can do something, etc.” The reality is a vast majority of them are funded by AIPAC & support this, and they’ll almost certainly have a majority of ignorant or naive people repeating their lies.

Here are some things they could try as well:

Sponsoring a Soldier’s Habeas Corpus Petition

Instead of lawmakers suing on their own behalf, a coalition of anti-war lawmakers could legally and financially back a Habeas Corpus petition for a U.S. service member currently deployed or ordered to participate in the Iran strikes.

• The Strategy: The lawsuit would argue that because the war is unconstitutional and lacks congressional authorization, the soldier’s deployment is an illegal deprivation of their liberty (violating their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights).
• Why it could work: A soldier ordered into a combat zone undeniably has “standing”—their life and liberty are directly at risk. If a group of lawmakers files amicus briefs and publicly coordinates this lawsuit, it forces a federal judge to answer whether the military’s orders are lawful. It takes the politicians out of the plaintiff’s seat and puts the actual victim of the constitutional violation in front of the judge.

The “Mike Gravel Maneuver” (The Speech or Debate Clause)

If the minority party knows the administration is lying about Iran posing an “imminent threat,” but the proof is highly classified, they do not need a judge or a majority to release it. They just need one brave lawmaker.

• The Law: Under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 6), members of Congress have absolute immunity from prosecution for anything they say or read during official legislative business.
• The Action: A single lawmaker (like a dissenting member of the Intelligence or Foreign Affairs Committees) could walk onto the floor of the House or Senate, or convene a specialized subcommittee, and read the classified intelligence proving the administration is lying straight into the public Congressional Record.
• The Precedent: This is exactly what Senator Mike Gravel did in 1971 when he read the top-secret Pentagon Papers into the record to expose the government’s lies about the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled he could not be prosecuted.
• The Complicity Test: If Democrats claim they have seen intelligence proving the strikes are unjustified but refuse to read it into the record because they are afraid of losing their security clearances or violating committee rules, they are prioritizing decorum over stopping a war.

The “Senate Hold”

The U.S. Senate runs almost entirely on something called “Unanimous Consent” to function smoothly and confirm nominees.

• The Law: A single Senator has the power to object to unanimous consent, placing a “hold” on Senate business.
• The Action: Just one or two anti-war Senators could publicly declare that they will place a blanket hold on every single military promotion, defense contractor confirmation, and Pentagon budgetary consent request until the administration publicly releases the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos justifying the strikes on Iran and the civilian boats.
• Why it Works: It does not require a majority. It single-handedly grinds the Pentagon’s administrative machinery to a halt. If the minority party refuses to use this leverage to demand transparency for an unconstitutional war, “our hands are tied” is just an excuse.

Sponsoring a Qui Tam (Whistleblower) Lawsuit

Since minority politicians cannot sue the President directly due to “lack of standing,” they can bypass the political blockade by using corporate fraud laws against the defense industry.

• The Law: The False Claims Act allows private citizens with insider knowledge to file a lawsuit on behalf of the government (known as a qui tam suit) against companies defrauding the taxpayers.
• The Action: Minority lawmakers could actively solicit and legally shield a whistleblower from inside a defense contractor (like the companies manufacturing the missiles hitting Iran). The lawsuit would argue that because the military operation violates the War Powers Resolution and the Anti-Deficiency Act, the defense contractor is fulfilling an illegal contract and fraudulently billing the U.S. taxpayer.
• Wh

Yeah he’s not supposed to do a lot of stuff. He farting all over the founding father’s faces.

I think that’s incorrect.

Donald became inevitable when the Democratic Party opted to rule in a manner that didn’t distinguish them from the Republicans in any meaningful way. “We” didn’t let him do anything. “We” exist in a country where absent a billion dollar fortune or membership in the Epstein Class, you have no power whatsoever to effect change outside of your local municipality.