https://nypost.com/2022/03/04/lindsey-graham-says-it-would-be-a-great-service-if-a-kremlin-official-killed-vladimir-putin/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alert&utm_content=20220304&lctg=6080ba40747925275a09dcd3&utm_term=NYP%20-%20News%20Alerts

NEWS 
Sen. Graham says it would be ‘a great service’ if a Kremlin official killed Putin
By Jesse O’Neill and Samuel Chamberlain
March 4, 2022 12:19am  Updated

*** begin quote ***

US Sen. Lindsey Graham called on Russians to assassinate President Vladimir Putin on Thursday night, as Ukraine pleaded with the West to fight the “nuclear terror.”

Graham (R-SC), 66, made the call to action on Twitter as he compared Putin to Roman dictator Julius Caesar and Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

“Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?” Graham wrote.

*** end quote ***

Maybe if Senator Graham was more familiar with the US Constitution, then he’d know there was a Constitutional appropriate way for Congress to express its disapproval.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/50/marque-and-reprisal

*** begin quote ***

Marque and Reprisal

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11
The Congress shall have Power To …grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal….

At the time of the Founding, the sovereign of any nation could authorize holders of “letters of marque and reprisal” to engage in hostile actions against enemies of the state. The common understanding of “Reprisal” is a seizure of property (or sometimes persons) of a foreign state as redress for an injury committed by that state. Because the word “Marque” is the French equivalent of “Reprisal,” the constitutional term “Marque and Reprisal” is best understood as a single phrase.

The only serious debate over the meaning of the Marque and Reprisal Clause is not whether it extends to authorizing private parties (known as “privateers”) to engage in reprisals for private, commercial gain. Rather, it centers on whether the clause gives Congress authority over all forms of hostilities short of declared wars.

That debate mirrors the larger war powers debate over the Declare War Clause. Supporters of congressional power construe the Declare War Clause and the Marque and Reprisal Clause jointly to cover all forms of armed conflict, from covert action to a full and open armed conflict. Under this reading, the President lacks any power whatsoever to initiate hostilities (except perhaps defensively to repel invasions), no matter their scope. They contend that the Declare War Clause requires Congress to authorize wars, whereas the Marque and Reprisal Clause requires Congress to authorize lower level hostilities, whether by public forces or by privateers.

*** end quote ***

—30—