Packed into the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act that’s been approved by both the House and Senate is an amendment designed to prevent any future president from withdrawing the US from NATO.
The legislation was a bipartisan effort led by Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) and would prohibit the president from leaving NATO without Senate approval or an Act of Congress.
According to The Hill, Kaine said the legislation “reaffirms US support for this crucial alliance that is foundational for our national security. It also sends a strong message to authoritarians around the world that the free world remains united.”
Kaine, Rubio, and other hawks in Congress would not have to worry about President Biden trying to leave NATO, as he is a staunch supporter of the alliance and has repeatedly stated the US obligation to NATO is “sacred.”
The legislation was likely designed with former President Trump in mind, although he has not said he would exit NATO. Trump has been critical of the alliance and asked other members to spend more on their military to lower the burden on the US, but NATO expanded into Montenegro and North Macedonia during his presidency.
Okay then.
As future President of the USA, I will convince all NATO members other than the USA, to leave NATO. 100% legal, chumps in Congress and Senate !
As a side note, I would LOVE if Canada left NATO. We have no reason to be there and it’s a waste of our time, money, and what little peacekeeper reputation we have left.
Canada and Russia share the oil rich Artic ocean. So you want to trust Russia to share the resources as opposed to just taking them all? OK. Leave NATO and find out.
Now, Timothy, two things. First off, there are plenty of countries in the world (one might say ‘a vast majority’) who are NOT in NATO and who mysteriously manage to successfully negotiate resource and trade agreements with other countries also not in or threatened by NATO.
Second, if Canada re-invested the money we waste on NATO into next-gen energy (like thorium-salt nuclear, and renewables) we’d need care about Russian companies drilling natural gas as much as we worry about them stealing horses that our knights and scouts might need.
Fossil fuels are nearly dead tech. As entangling alliances have proven to be, for 100+ years.
First, so you do trust Russia, good for you.
Second, Fossil fuels have a long way to go before being dead. Try to fly an airplane on batteries. Not to mention the petrochemicals that we use everyday. And concept of a thorium reactors have been around since the early 1950s. So far they are not competitive with uranium based reactors.
I trust people or institutions until I have good reason not-to. Call it a default position or good ol’ “fyeth of the Oyresh” but “I always figure you might as well approach life like everybody’s your friend or nobody is; don’t make much difference.” (Paden, ‘Silverado’ (1985))
Yes, we will still use petroleum products (Crom’s devils, we still use bows and arrows !!) but Peak Demand is close.
And Thorium reactors “can’t compete” because standard Uranium fission models produce components useful for nuclear weapons (at the expense of reactor safety, mind you).
Please no nuclear.
It can be done smarter and safer than it has. Thorium-salt has that potential.
Absent, of course, self-sustaining and net-gain fusion.
“Everyones your friend or no one is” I personally dont start out of the gate like this.
It’s a movie quote I like. But also a philosophy I can ascribe to. I try to do that here, in these Comment sections.
With regular Commenters, or with people here I’ve not seen before, I go in with the presupposition they are genuine, honest, thoughtful people with an opinion that, while possibly aligned with or divergent from my own, are worth hearing out, as their perspective may inform gaps or mistakes in my own perspective that, in looking to align myself with what best aligns with reality, I might have overlooked.
Besides that, thinking that everyone’s a friend I haven’t met yet (instead of an enemy I haven’t made yet) just feels like a better way to go through life.
Not a fan of nuclear , . . You can thank, Fukashima, Chernobyl, The death of my father as a downwinder in the US (leukema histiocytosis x), three mile island, etc, for that.
But as long as it stays up north in Canada I suppose.
https://www.hrsa.gov/rural-health/grants/radiation-exposure/downwinders
I am sorry about your dad. As it happens, my wife has Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) but it’s the very best of the cancers – in that she’ll die with it instead of from it; it might be an issue in 30-40 years but for now we often forget she has it. She feels bad about any attention in Cancer Month (April ?) because she doesn’t feel hers even qualifies as cancer. Not compared to the really serious variants.
LOL i think you are getting Russia mixed up with America who at this very minute are stealing oil from Syria .
Trust russia to share oil? Like they run around stealing everyones oil?
Yup. All you’d need to do is announce that the US will only intervene to help our embers under attack if it’s strictly in OUR national interest, not out of any treaty obligation.
I think Article V of NATO already allows for member states’ national assemblies (Congress, or Parliament for Metric countries) to decide whether to accede to an A.5 callout ? It’s not an automatic all-in ?
Yep. Article V basically says that if a member state is attacked, the other member states are obligated to do whatever they happen to feel like doing about it.
it does … but presidents have acted as if Art 5 means automatic reprisal. Clarify that it does not and that there’s no way in Hell that the US will go to thermonuclear war to protect Latvia from invasion by Russia and the whole premise of the organization is done.
That would be a dangerous miscalculation by Russia. History has shown that more often than not, an aggressive nation underestimates the response of others.
Are you saying that an intelligent US president WOULD go to thermonuclear war and thus the end of the world to “protect” Latvia?
I don`t think any one in the US Establishment is insane enough to go nuclear , however i would not rule it out , it will be a case of more proxy wars ,or invading defenceless countries ect , America is now a war economy so needs wars .
Would a president go thermonuclear to protect Latvia? Actually that most likely depends on which drugs they are on and who is pulling the strings. Also have they been to epstein island might be a factor. I believe they would if it was profitable.
BTW, You said an intellegent president. Where have you been the last 20 years? Must have been a spellcheck typo.
“You said an intelligent president.”
There have been some. Tho I fall back to the axiom we used to use playing D&D to define two character Attributes :
“Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing a tomato does not go in fruit salad.”
So far Russia has made few if any miscalculations. Not saying they are winning or a preferred aggressor state, Just saying on the miscalculation stance, they are definitly not leading the pack by a long shot
History doesn’t have an example of a superpower getting into a nuclear war over a pissant of a country like Latvia. No offense Latvia.
If they don`t join in they get sanctioned , as Henry Kissinger said , TO BE A ENEMY OF AMERICA IS DANGEROUS TO BE A FRIEND CAN BE FATAL .
Sanctions are becoming a two edged sword
Never happen i`m afraid to say , however if the populations of the NATO LACKEYS see themselves being drawn into a nuclear war by US war mongering they will take to the streets in their millions bringing down governments as they go and demanding their countries leave NATO .
This would appear to be unfortunate legislation if passed, as Nato would almost certainly not appear to have been a defensive organization throughout its operations in Libya and Yugoslavia.
FJB and little dweeb RINO Marco Rubio.
Found: “After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may
cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been
given to the Government of the United States of America, which will
inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each
notice of denunciation.”
So, our Government would have to give itself a “notice of denunciation”. Who becomes the next gatekeeper? My prediction if this happens: NATO will collapse one year later if not instantly.
US cannot leave NATO but EU members can…!
So, if Trump wins in 2024 and the republicans control congress, couldn’t that amendment be stricken from a future NDAA?
Wishful thinking, because Trump and the Republicans have shown themselves to do the bidding of Zionist, who are rampant in NATO Nations.
The problem with the idea of the “worldwide Zionist conspiracy” is that if it were true, you’d think they’d simply eliminate and/or censor the lone online forum users consistently able to expose them to the world.
You cant boil the frog all at once, It junps out of the pot.
Have you ever noticed the bigger something is the longer it usually takes?
Big ships turn slowly.
They basically have eliminated them except on the fringes like this forum, which are of no threat.
Thank you, IMO , they all suck
I agree. I was just pointing out that the NDAA isn’t something that is etched in stone and can be amended from year to year.
So if anyone wins in 2024, . It could, . . Looks like a promo op to me.
The legislation was likely designed with former President Trump in mind, although he has not said he would exit NATO.
Unless NATO wronged Trump during his presidency, there is no need to worry. Revenge/retribution and overturning the 2020 election will be first and foremost amongst Trump’s goals for his second term.
The vast majority of the uniparty is run by the MIC. Fox News is as rabidly pro- war as MSNBC as pipelines of the pentagon.
This was intended for your other comment.
Arrgh, Trump and Biden on the ballot, ewww
Another 4 years wasted,
“Kaine said the legislation “reaffirms US support for this crucial alliance that is foundational for our national security.”
Kaine thought that the legislation “reaffirms US govt deference to MICIMATT and the powers that be to ensure future benefits for crony trillionaires are vouchsafed.”
What a stupid idea.
How is this not unconstitutional? Legal scholars?
What in the Constitution would prohibit it? The Constitution only gives the president the power to enter into treaties with the concurrence of 2/3 of the Senate, and mentions no presidential power to unilaterally withdraw from treaties at all.
Enforcing military alliance with foreign countries seems far afield from anything the founders imagined.
It seems to have been a defect in their thinking/forethought that they would have specifically textually required Senate approval to enter into treaties, but have said nothing about how treaties may be exited.
In the absence of other constitutional guidance, my opinion is that since treaties become part of “the Supreme Law of the Land” upon ratification, it should at least take congressionally passed and presidentially signed (or veto-overridden) legislation to withdraw from them. And pre-emptively quashing that executive action would likewise seem to be constitutionally kosher.
As for entangling foreign alliances, yes, the early presidents (and presumably their co-founders) found them suspect, and we’d likely all be better off if that attitude had been maintained.
It does seem, based on these actions, that they are resigned to a Trump win.
And it illustrates blatantly how the MIC runs the government, not the other way around.
The issue which the US Supreme Court might have to resolve is this. Our government must give itself a “notice of denunciation”. Is a presidential order enough for that or must our president get approval from Congress first?
amen
And whatever happened to “declaring war” with congressional approval before engaging in war?
Agreed.
Congress and the presidency have been fighting for 50 years over the “War Powers Resolution.”
Every president claims it unconstitutionally restrains his foreign policy power, a position which seems to have no basis in the Constitution.
And Congress issues “Authorizations for the Use of Military Force” which specifically state — via a “War Powers reservations” clause — that they’re NOT declarations of war.
Then both sides yell BUT WE’RE AT WAR!!! when they want to spend money, violate civil liberties, etc.
Have you ever noticed when they want to pass something thats unfavorable and they dont want it thoroughly looked into, . . Its an emergency situation
So, as commander in chief, a POTUS can redeploy US troops anywhere he chooses. Withdraw all US troops from Europe. Technically, the US would still be in NATO. So what?
Yes nato just gives them another excuse to give the people and solidifies their supposed allies
Checks and balences
What “Free World” are they talking about? All I hear is that you can’t say this word, you can’t have this thought, you must agree or go to jail. So what “Free World” are they talking about?
The world where those in power freely get richer on war while the masses die for them or pay for their own destruction.
I wasnt much on Platos republic, But his online comment got my upvote
This is their “insurance policy” in case Donald Trump wins the Presidency again.
That is their insurance policy in case anyone wins the presidency
How did the great lesson of entangling alliances leading to the horror show of WWI become such an abjectly forgotten lesson?
The lesson was never learned, so it could not be forgotten.
Agree sadly
Rubio & Kaine were doubtless handed this masterpiece by K St. And what we see here is the marketing ‘genius’ of the MIC, and the bipartisan craven sycophancy of our bourgeois pol-scum.
Remember when Kaine was offered as an “antiwar” side candidate from the Democratic Party? …It’s just me?
I do. He’s the perfect example of being against war when the other party is in power.
They’re not serious. If they were really serious about saving NATO, they would have passed a US legislation to prevent Russia from launching a nuclear war. Or Russia, China, and all the other nations in the world from unifying to defeat NATO. That’s the only way NATO will “Rest In Peace.” Until then, NATO will not be stopped by any American President. (Sarcasm. Seriously? You think I’m that stupid?)
LOL NATO is Americas way of keeping Europe DOWN economically and Militarily the last thing they want is more competition .
Actually i have no problem with this. Its become way too easy for just the president to make decisions willy nilly, . . Now if we can just get better decision making in the whole congress by throwing the riff raff to the curb
If we threw all the riff raff in congress to the curb, we wouldn’t have anyone left in congress.
Nah, the Bosses would just send new riff-raff for voters to choose from.
Well, maybe Thomas Massie would be left in congress.
This is silly. Even if a law prohibiting a president from leaving NATO could withstand constitutional challenge, which isn’t even close to certain, presidents unquestionably have sufficient, unchallengeable authority to manage foreign policy, under the Constitution and relevant case law, to make mere membership meaningless.
What in the Constitution gives president “unquestionably sufficient, unchallengeable authority to manage foreign policy?”
It’s a street trash named Desire.
Who cares if the US is locked into NATO?? Just please don’t complain when other members do not want to “compete” for defense spending with the US behemoth. If EU were to increase its defense spending by 1% of GDP it would add $150 billion, nowhere near the $888 billion of the US. What incentive is there for this? None. The US would have to decrease its own spending if it expected Europe to increase its own spendinc significantly. Also, maybe the US could audit where all that defense spending goes because it sure looks like the world has been hoodwinked by the humongous defense budget when the US cannot follow through on promises to help Ukraine “as long as it takes”.
The only RINO worse than Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) was John McCain.
John McCain was an A$$ole masquerading as a human!
Congress speaks loud and clear to make it mightily difficult to exit NATO, an aggressive, military alliance. When it comes to dropping out of peace treaties – the ABM (anti-ballistic missile treaty), the open-skies treaty, the JCPA (Iran nuclear deal), INF (Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces – the Senate was silent, the President had no problem. When it comes to actually ratifying peace treaties – SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation), removing US troops from Iraq (U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement) – the U.S. Senate is MIA.
The U.S. is an empire. You can’t reasonably expect it to act like a peace-maker. Empires make war to gain and maintain land/territory, and that’s what the U.S. does. Colonialism nowadays is more subtle, but the U.S. still makes war all over the planet to expand and maintain its empire.