Merged Trump Fires Comey....

[dudalb]

I'm afraid we'll be flogging that horse for a while. Press briefing going on right now they are tripling down on the hypocritical Democrats who wanted Comey fired and insisting this wasn't about the investigation.

Honestly, how stupid are people that they buy this crap? It's insane.

As much as I despise Trump,he has a point that the Dems are being hypocrites on the issue of Comey. Of course, so is the GOP...

Fact is, Comey had pretty much managed to alienate the leadership of Both Parties with his conduct.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That's how treaties work. Signing NAFTA limits the president and Congress's power over trade and even interstate commerce. If a treaty didn't obligate anyone to anything, it would be a useless piece of paper.

We will start with this concept. I think this is something that represents a big chunk of the disagreement with what I argued.

Your interpretation is not correct. I have found wikipedia has the most concise explanation on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] Consequently, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.[1]

Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[9] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.

NAFTA, like all treaties, impose zero limits on congress. Any law congress passes later that conflicts with the treaty automatically supersedes that treaty. They don't even have to say they are repealing anything.

 

[TraneWreck]

True, but you would have to prove that was why Trump did it.
I think it is why he did it, but I would hate to have to actually prove that in a court of law.

Exactly. I doubt we'll be as lucky as they were in the 70's - stumbling on to a bunch of recordings of Nixon actively plotting away.

 

[Belz...]

As much as I despise Trump,he has a point that the Dems are being hypocrites on the issue of Comey. Of course, so is the GOP...

Except that, as noted before, it's not over Comey that Democrats are upset; it's over the lie about the reason of the firing, and the interference with FBI business.

 

[Stacko]

Rosenstein has requested a meeting with Senate Intel leaders.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...eting-with-senate-intelligence-leaders-238268

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did you notice that at one point he does a lot of that weird sniffing/snorting? It's a tell, of what I'm not sure.

I didn't see the sniffing but I'm trying to write and listen at the same time. I'll look more closely as they are playing it over and over.

I did notice how there were tells making it absurdly obvious he made up the dinner and two phone calls on the spot.

 

[dudalb]

And yet President after President has still waged limited warfare without Congress.

And have done so since the beginning of the nation. There seems to be a clear consensus that the President can take short term military action without congressional approval. Question is what the limits of that power are.

 

[dudalb]

Except that, as noted before, it's not over Comey that Democrats are upset; it's over the lie about the reason of the firing, and the interference with FBI business.

Agreed.
IMHO Comey probably needed to go, just because his credibtility with both parties was gone down the drain, but the way it was done was outrageous.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not concerned. Why? Because Trump isn't going to be a dictator. Dictators don't tend to last long when they get most of the population HATING them. Dictators are feared yes but there's a difference between "I don't like him but i'm afraid of being disappeared" and "**** that ******* for taking my wife on our wedding night!".

I seem to recall that they weren't concerned in Germany in 1933 either.

 

[Babbylonian]

Rosenstein has requested a meeting with Senate Intel leaders.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...eting-with-senate-intelligence-leaders-238268

Hopefully to tell them that he was ordered to write the memo, which, frankly, is the only way the memo makes sense.

 

[TraneWreck]

We will start with this concept. I think this is something that represents a big chunk of the disagreement with what I argued.

Your interpretation is not correct. I have found wikipedia has the most concise explanation on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause



NAFTA, like all treaties, impose zero limits on congress. Any law congress passes later that conflicts with the treaty automatically supersedes that treaty. They don't even have to say they are repealing anything.

Ok, this is semantic.

NAFTA operates as federal law until it's changed. When it is in operation, it absolutely constrains the President and Congress's power. If they don't follow it, they are in breach of the treaty, if they repeal it, "Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law."

That would make it illegal. Again, I asked how you were defining "illegal."

Could the other signatories enforce the law or punish us? Probably not, in a purely power sense, but it would be a violation of the law.

You seem to think that a legal structure must also include a mechanism capable of barring the action in question. Enforcement is a separate matter, especially in international law.

I mean, we could just start bombing France. It would be an obvious violation of NATO, but unless everyone got together and attacked us, it could be done. That doesn't make it legal.

 

[dudalb]

And yet President after President has still waged limited warfare without Congress.

And have done so from George Washington (his Indian wars in the Old Northwest) on.
That the President has the power to take Military Action on a short term basis without Congressional Approval seems to be a given.Question is what are the limits of this power, when does it cease being "Short Term".

 

[BobTheCoward]

Ok, this is semantic.

NAFTA operates as federal law until it's changed. When it is in operation, it absolutely constrains the President and Congress's power. If they don't follow it, they are in breach of the treaty, if they repeal it, "Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law."

That would make it illegal. Again, I asked how you were defining "illegal."

Could the other signatories enforce the law or punish us? Probably not, in a purely power sense, but it would be a violation of the law.

You seem to be conflating "illegal" with "cannot be stopped."

My use of "illegal" is "as defined by domestic law." I believe that is the only law the joint chiefs would be able to reference in determining an illegal order.

 

[Stacko]

Hopefully to tell them that he was ordered to write the memo, which, frankly, is the only way the memo makes sense.

Considering the Orange Menace just admitted that he was going to fire Comey regardless of what the memo said, I think Rosenstein might be a little miffed at the scapegoating the White House put him through.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Considering the Orange Menace just admitted that he was going to fire Comey regardless of what the memo said, I think Rosenstein might be a little miffed at the scapegoating the White House put him through.

Rosenstein chose to say firing is a serious decision and Comey can't fix the bureau. Rosenstein chose to write his last paragraph, but the letter would still have worked if he omitted it. The paragraphs before that are mostly an explanation of the facts.

 

[TraneWreck]

My use of "illegal" is "as defined by domestic law." I believe that is the only law the joint chiefs would be able to reference in determining an illegal order.

But, again, it's perfectly possible for the US to launch a strike that is legal by our local standards but that violates international law.

If you don't consider that illegal, then this isn't really much of a discussion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And have done so from George Washington (his Indian wars in the Old Northwest) on.
That the President has the power to take Military Action on a short term basis without Congressional Approval seems to be a given.Question is what are the limits of this power, when does it cease being "Short Term".

Legally, basically none and 90 days.

 

[acbytesla]

And have done so since the beginning of the nation. There seems to be a clear consensus that the President can take short term military action without congressional approval. Question is what the limits of that power are.

Here's the thing and the UCMJ is pretty clear. Every soldier is obligated to disobey any order he believes constitutes an illegal order even if it comes from the President. So the question and answer about the nukes is in fact a murky one.

 

[Belz...]

And have done so since the beginning of the nation. There seems to be a clear consensus that the President can take short term military action without congressional approval. Question is what the limits of that power are.

And have done so from George Washington (his Indian wars in the Old Northwest) on.
That the President has the power to take Military Action on a short term basis without Congressional Approval seems to be a given.Question is what are the limits of this power, when does it cease being "Short Term".

Do it a third time! Do it a third time!!!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Here's the thing and the UCMJ is pretty clear. That any soldier is obligated to disobey any order he believes constitutes an illegal order even if it comes from the President. So the question and answer about the nukes is in fact a murky one.

What law is it violating?