

It means that he wasn’t going to get an AUMF from Congress in his 60 day window, which is what I pretty much expected. Now it sounds like he’s going to try to continue the blockade portion (i.e. not the bombing) but argue that imposing a blockade doesn’t constitute deployment of troops, which I suspect isn’t going to fly if it comes to court. But we’ll see how the legal and political maneuvering plays out.

















I mean, hypothetically you could have a law passed to make anything you want illegal. I won’t speak as to the practicality of that in your particular case, but it’s theoretically possible.
However, wherever you are, it’s likely not permissible under its constitution or treaties to make a law to make someone’s legal actions illegal after they have done whatever it is so that you can punish them for actions that were legal at the time of the action; this is an ex post facto law, and are often one of the things that legal systems don’t accept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law