Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Trump Orders Greenland Invasion Plans from Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).


Military leaders are resisting since it would be an illegal order. Congress already has passed legislation preventing Trump from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO.

Trump's real goal is the destruction of NATO.

Not mining minerals (a trade treaty with Denmark could accomplish that). Not defending Greenland from Russia aggression (Denmark is part of NATO; an attack by Russia would lead to Article 5 being invoked).

We have a MAGA in the White House: a Moscow Agent Governing America.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15452323/Donald-Trump-orders-army-chiefs-plan-invade-Greenland-President.html
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Unfortunately Trump doesn't have to withdrawal from NATO. And Congress won't, nor can, limit the executive orders. That will allow him to start the "military action", which would violate the NATO treaty.

Sixty days would be more than enough, under the war powers act even to force the issue. It's still a violation of the NATO agreement.

You want to force the issue of changing the war powers resolution? 🤷🏻‍♂

Right! Give this supreme Court a say in the constitutionality of that law! Trump will love you for it!

It seems you have some significant concerns about military action, executive power, and NATO obligations, especially in relation to the War Powers Act. Let’s break down some of the points you’ve raised:

NATO and Military Action

NATO is a defensive alliance, and any military action initiated must comply with the treaty obligations. Concerns regarding a president disregarding these obligations are valid, especially if action is taken without congressional approval.

War Powers Act

The War Powers Act aims to check the president's power to commit U.S. forces to armed conflict without congressional consent. While the president can act in emergencies, they are meant to notify Congress within 48 hours, and military action should generally cease after 60 days without approval unless Congress authorizes it.

Changing the War Powers Resolution

The idea of changing the War Powers Resolution is complex. Any modification must balance the need for swift action in crises with the necessity of legislative oversight.

Supreme Court's Role

If any changes were made to the War Powers Resolution, it’s likely that legal challenges would ensue, and the Supreme Court could be called to determine the constitutionality of those changes. This could create a contentious situation regarding the separation of powers.

Your perspective on Trump potentially benefiting from such a situation reflects wider concerns about executive power and checks and balances in government.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@DeWayfarer

Trump would be in violation of federal law for having violated a signed U.S. treaty. And anyone following those orders would also be in violation of the law (Hegseth, the JCS, right down to individual soldiers).

My hunch is that if Trump's illegal orders were followed impeachment would be immediate in the House and a conviction would soon follow in the Senate.

Whether Vance would be able to mend relations with NATO is another question. It may depend on whether he endorses the initial action and what he does or says after the impeachment conviction.

If he doesn't immediately withdraw U.S. troops, he'd be toast as well and Mike Johnson would end up as acting president until January 20, 2029.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@beckyromero This would go to the supreme Court before a trial could happen. And this supreme Court WILL VOTE in favor of Trump.

You should know this. The president is commander in Chief by the constitution itself. It doesn't limit his executive powers. Not as president nor as commander in Chief.

Heck even the war powers resolution would be in question by this supreme Court.

It's just like Roe verses Wade. It's not in the constitution.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@DeWayfarer

A Trump-ordered invasion of Greenland will lead directly to impeachment, not a vote on the War Powers Act.

And conviction (or not) in an impeachment case lies with the U.S. Senate, not SCOTUS.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@beckyromero And Why I said trail!

When will you understand that Trump really isn't afraid of impeachment.

It's just a minor inconvenience to Trump.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@DeWayfarer

SCOTUS has no legal authority to stop an impeachment.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@beckyromero When will you understand that Trump really isn't afraid of impeachment.

It's just a minor inconvenience to Trump.

And the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT is the head of the TRIAL!
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@DeWayfarer

This would not be any ordinary impeachment.

And Roberts' role is near meaningless. The Senate is the jury.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@beckyromero Roberts role was imperative in BOTH impeachments!

Roberts excluded the evidence in both those trials.

It neither never made it to the TRIAL!
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@beckyromero Ok you figure out why there wasn't a trial!

That was the reason! Lack of evidence will shut down any trial.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@DeWayfarer
Roberts excluded the evidence in both those trials.

How fast will it happen? THIS fast.

I expect that there would be a privileged resolution introduced in the House the same day, possibly within hours, of the invasion. This bypasses normal committee action and would move to the floor quickly.

Denmark will certainly ask that Article 5 of the NATO charter be invoked. The U.S. may try to stall, but other NATO members will consider throwing the U.S. out of NATO. A delay will result in how expulsion would work since there is no such clause. This will give Congress a day, two at the most, to act.

Speaker Johnson will see the writing on the wall and approve the "privileged" status. A floor vote will be set, likely for the next day at the latest, and each side will be allotted equal times, perhaps two hours at maximum.

Impeachment will require a simple majority. It will be a done deal. Secretary Hegseth will likely be impeached at the same time.

The articles of impeachment will be sent to the Senate. Depending on the vote, the Senate may convene the same night or the next day at the latest.

Since the "evidence" is Trump's orders (and possible a televised announcement) and the NATO charter, there is essentially nothing for Roberts to rule on. If he would to even attempt the absurd notion of ruling the actual invasion as not evidence, he'd face impeachment himself (as would any justice that would replace him). The Senate would likely convict the same day the "trial" started, possibly within hours.

President Vance would then be told by Congressional leaders he has X amount of hours to remove U.S. troops from Greenland or he would be impeached (and convicted) as well.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@beckyromero AND YOU ARE EXCLUDING THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT!

He not only can exclude evidence yet the chief justice presides over the trial.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@DeWayfarer

Roberts has NO VOTE. Senators do. Roberts would be performing a mere ceremonial role.

If he were to try to sabotage the trial (which is likely to last a mere hour or two), he would be impeached himself.

Stop trying to make it sound as if Roberts has the power to pull Trump out of Hell.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@beckyromero He already excluded the evidence in the first two impeachments.

NO IMPEACHMENT OF ROBERTS HAPPEN!
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@DeWayfarer

This is pointless. Stop trying to equate what the previous two impeachment were compared to the U.S. president violating a treaty and ordering a military attack on an ally.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@DeWayfarer

What Trump thinks in his delusional mind won't matter.

And BTW:
https://similarworlds.com/bat-ball/baseball/5485671-Welcome-to-Chicago-Alex-Go-Cubs-Go
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@beckyromero Sorry I simply don't follow any professional sports.

I really don't like the capitalism it represents.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@DeWayfarer

Given all the league-imposed revenue sharing, salary caps (in some sports) and luxury taxes, it's more like corporate sponsored socialism. 😜
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@beckyromero Nor a fan of corporations, nor the parts of the 14th amendment that give corporations rights!

One follows the next.