Erebus

@RealJackkkkk @TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor haha thats funny laws are challenged in court every day

@hyperionca @TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor Yes, treaties that didn't have a law codified into law saying they must have a 2/3's majority to pull the country out the treaty. Whether you like it or not, the law is the law.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump will be discussing WITHDRAWING THE US FROM NATO this afternoon with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte "They were tested, and they FAILED," Trump said It's time. NATO needs US. We don't need them!

@RealJackkkkk @TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor that says nothing about ending a treaty and past presidents have ended treaties without a congressional vote. thats called precedent

@hyperionca @TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor constitution.congress.gov/browse/article…

@RealJackkkkk @TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor the constitution does not give congress that power. trump needs a years notice and two more of his own appointees on the sc. purely speculation but would trump test the constitutionality of that law? of course

@hyperionca @TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor It is not unconstitutional, it has been voted and passed by congress and the senate, then signed into law. Just because you might not like it, doesn't mean its unconstitutional.

@HenryFrank02 they should be required to make those all faith prayers if theyre going to be in public.

Complaints are growing in NYC over reports of daily public prayers led by city leadership, with claims that spaces are being restricted to ONLY allow Muslim men.♂️ Does this concern you?

@MandigoJames @TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor only for treaty ratification , not termination

@hyperionca @TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor The President can negotiate and make treaties but 2/3 of the Senate still have to agree.

@RealJackkkkk @TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor that law is unconstitutional, it has zero precedent

@hyperionca @TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor NATO was certified under law during Bidens term, he cannot withdraw without a 2/3’s majority.

@CodyBetts4 @TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor thats unconstitutional

@TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor Yeah they passed something during Biden's term as a just in case Trump gets back in failsafe.

@TheTrueXProphet @Cloud_thePotato @nicksortor this law is unconstitutional

No, President Trump cannot unilaterally remove the United States from the NATO alliance under current U.S. law. A specific statute enacted by Congress in 2023 (as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, Section 1250A) explicitly prohibits the President from suspending, terminating, denouncing, or withdrawing the U.S. from the North Atlantic Treaty without either: •The advice and consent of the Senate (with two-thirds of Senators present concurring), or •An act of Congress.0 This law also restricts the use of federal funds to support any unilateral withdrawal and requires advance consultation with key congressional committees. It was passed with bipartisan support (including by then-Senator Marco Rubio) amid concerns about potential U.S. exit from NATO, and it was signed by President Biden. International vs. Domestic Rules Internationally, Article 13 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty allows any member to withdraw after giving one year’s notice of denunciation to the U.S. government (which serves as the treaty depositary). No NATO member has ever invoked this provision in the alliance’s history.8 Domestically, however, the U.S. Constitution is silent on treaty withdrawal (it only specifies Senate advice and consent for making treaties). Historical practice has often involved unilateral presidential action for many treaties, and a 2020 Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion under the first Trump administration asserted broad executive authority over treaty termination.7 Congress’s 2023 law directly challenges that view for NATO specifically—the first statute of its kind targeting unilateral withdrawal from any treaty. Practical and Legal Realities •If Trump attempted unilateral withdrawal: It would violate the 2024 NDAA statute. This could trigger congressional lawsuits, potential court challenges (though courts have historically treated treaty termination as a “political question” and avoided ruling on the merits), and a constitutional standoff between branches. Legal experts note the outcome would be uncertain, as presidential foreign affairs powers (as “sole organ” in international relations) might be invoked, but Congress has tools like funding restrictions and oversight.1 •Short of formal exit: A president could take actions that weaken U.S. commitment in practice, such as reducing troop levels, withholding support for certain operations, or publicly questioning Article 5 (collective defense). These could “poison the well” for the alliance without a formal withdrawal, effectively undermining NATO even if the U.S. remains a member on paper.4 •Congressional involvement: Withdrawing would likely require significant legislative buy-in. A two-thirds Senate vote is a high bar, especially in a divided Congress. In short, while presidents have broad latitude in foreign policy and historical precedent for unilateral treaty actions exists, the specific congressional prohibition on NATO withdrawal makes unilateral exit by Trump (or any president) illegal under statute—and subject to political, legal, and practical pushback. Any attempt would likely spark a major interbranch conflict rather than a clean exit. No U.S. president has ever withdrawn from NATO.

@TheTrueXProphet @nicksortor treaties are specifically an executive branch function not gongressional

@nicksortor It isn’t up to him. Only Congress can vote to leave.

@Mr_Alex_Graham @HenryFrank02 @za_usrt preach is a stretch, theyre just repeating the same prayer, same words

@HenryFrank02 @za_usrt If Muslims can do then so can other religions. Stop complaining about it and get out there preaching a different religion than Islam. Give them some competition.

@unhealthytruth lemmings leading lemmings

BREAKING 🚨 Elon Musk announced he will buy a Cybertruck for anyone that can provide proof of who wrote this scripted propaganda video that is uploaded by 20+ Dem Senators saying the same thing 🚘🚘🚘🚘🚘🚘🚘🚘

@Andrevin20 @ProjectLiberal @MattWalshBlog are you kidding? onate, montoya, peralta were some of the first to establish santa fe and settle

@hyperionca @ProjectLiberal @MattWalshBlog Uh huh, and what did the surnames of those Spaniards sound like, “O’Brien? Thatcher?…

Ah yes, “Texas teens” named Jose Rojas-Alvarado, Oscar Armando Santiago-Martinez, Angel Lemus-Perez, and Carlos Roberto Oliva-Villeda. Good old American names. Texans through and through.

@Alekillo10 @TheGoatCapital @twicrates Exactly, not born in those years, 15 in those years

@hyperionca @TheGoatCapital @twicrates That’s almost Gen X

america was about to go on the most brain melting run of all time and then baby boomers took three puffs of ditch weed and decided enriching the third world would be more chill

@TheDemocrats the face of diversity!

Wisconsin's liberal Supreme Court majority 🇺🇸

@BenStiller in ukraine? absolutely

Stop the escalation. End the war now. No one wants this.

I filed a complaint with the Alameda County Real Estate FRAUD UNIT on Kristina Mrzywka who LIED to CA Courts to keep Eric Swalwell ON THE BALLOT, claiming he rented her house. But her HOMESTEAD TAX EXEMPTION REQUIRED HER to live in her house! > Complaint: tinyurl.com/mraunmcp

@ProjectLiberal @MattWalshBlog no they haven't , white spaniards were the first to settle Texas, in fact before the 1970s all spanish speaking latinos in central and south america were classified as white. the term hispanic only came into use in the 1970s

@MattWalshBlog Hispanics have been living longer in Texas than white people.

@TheGoatCapital @twicrates 15 year olds from 61-73 actually, it's not one year , it's a generation of retards

@twicrates Damn those 15 year olds in 1961 really fucked us huh