Merged Trump Fires Comey....

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm specifically talking about treaties that conflict with the constitution, and therefore would be be applicable in the US. (quoted something about it all the way back on post 867).

It would be the Job of the Supreme Court to determine this conflict.
If it says nothing it means it's ok.

 

[varwoche]

Drop the silly derail. This is a lot of interesting on topic developments occuring right now.

Ditto.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It would be the Job of the Supreme Court to determine this conflict.
If it says nothing it means it's ok.

True. Any argument that is "X is un/constitutional" has a certain suspension of disbelief that if the debaters agree the argument is substantive, the 9 justices would give it the time of day rather than rely on political implications.

 

[acbytesla]

Nope, if that were the case then the air strikes on syria would have been illegal and we would have booted Trump for that. Find a real one.

I 100 percent agree THAT IT IS MURKY.This whole discussion reminds me of the famous electric shock experiment.

 

[acbytesla]

Those are treaties that have weight in US law because they do not conflict with the consitution (post 867 again).

Where in the Constitution does it say that the President can wage war without the authorization of Congress?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Where in the Constitution does it say that the President can wage war without the authorization of Congress?

A few nukes doth not a war make....
According to the executive branch.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Where in the Constitution does it say that the President can wage war without the authorization of Congress?

1) The AUMF authorizes it, so the question is moot.

2) If there is no AUMF, I'm going to list the parts pro executive people cite (putting it out generally for anyone)

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,


With the argument being that launching preemptive attacks is an executive and/or commander in chief power.

 

[acbytesla]

A few nukes doth not a war make....
According to the executive branch.

Yeah..right. that's the ticket and I slept with Britney Spears.

 

[dudalb]

I 100 percent agree THAT IT IS MURKY.This whole discussion reminds me of the famous electric shock experiment.

And that the President can authorize the use of military force within a limited time frame, has pretty much been accepted since the Constituion was adapted. Question is what are the limits?

 

[acbytesla]

1) The AUMF authorizes it, so the question is moot.

2) If there is no AUMF, I'm going to list the parts pro executive people cite (putting it out generally for anyone)

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,

With the argument being that launching preemptive attacks is an executive and/or commander in chief power.

That's a stretch. The power is not unlimited. But it doesn't matter what you or I believe only those tasked with carrying out the order. A preemptive nuclear strike on an ally? Would YOU carry out that order?

 

[TraneWreck]

Those are treaties that have weight in US law because they do not conflict with the consitution (post 867 again).

But that's different than saying they're irrelevant. People can still be prosecuted for violations...etc.

Because the UCMJ has incorporated much of the GC, it would take a positive act of Congress to supervene those rules. If that happened, then it would be "legal" to do just about anything. The only check, as with presidents and nukes, is the voting populace and international pressure.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That's a stretch. The power is not unlimited. But it doesn't matter what you or I believe only those tasked with carrying out the order. A preemptive nuclear strike on an ally? Would YOU carry out that order?

When I was younger and in the military and if we agreed that it was a lawful order? Yes.

Now? I have a lot of problems with the constitution, so I wouldn't take another oath to follow it.

 

[varwoche]

Sheesh people, it's hard to keep up with this thread even when it stays on topic.

 

[Beerina]

A supine congress sure does nothing to work to the advantage of reigning in presidential warmaking adventures.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But that's different than saying they're irrelevant. People can still be prosecuted for violations...etc.

Because the UCMJ has incorporated much of the GC, it would take a positive act of Congress to supervene those rules. If that happened, then it would be "legal" to do just about anything. The only check, as with presidents and nukes, is the voting populace and international pressure.

My next argument could be that congress putting provisions like that into the UCMJ impedes on the president's CinC power and are also void, but the treaty stuff has been a very long day and that piece is by far my most tenuous (and a point I have gone the most back and forth on).

 

[Stacko]

White House admits Comey was fired to bring Russia investigation to an end.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/05/11/...tion-russia-sarah-huckabee-sanders/index.html

Idiots.

 

[Arcade22]

Spicer’s version of events is utterly obliterated by Trump’s comments on Thursday. With Sanders and Conway, you could make an argument that Trump was indeed, technically speaking, taking Rosenstein’s recommendation and then acting.

But if the decision had already been made, that’s a highly misleading talking point to keep repeating. After all, the decision clearly had nothing to do with Rosenstein.

It’s clear that the White House wanted to use Rosenstein’s credibility, built up over three decades in law enforcement, to make this decision look apolitical. This made it seem like it wasn’t just the president unilaterally firing the guy who was investigating his 2016 campaign's ties to Russia. This was actually a talking point and narrative that was intended to protect Trump.

But then Trump himself told us the truth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ated-the-white-houses-entire-comey-narrative/

Firing the head of a public agency under false pretenses is something that's extremely objectionable and if anything should be grounds for removal of office. Comey served at the pleasure of the President and could be dismissed for any-reason whatsoever but having the President make up a paper-thin lie to serve as a pretense is outrageous. It simply shows the extreme level of deceit and dishonesty which permeates the Trump administration.

 

[acbytesla]

When I was younger and in the military and if we agreed that it was a lawful order? Yes.

Now? I have a lot of problems with the constitution, so I wouldn't take another oath to follow it.

We are so way off topic. But I would still take that oath. An oath BTW that the President and everyone in Congress and the Senate also take. It's not perfect. But if not the Constitution what would you follow?

 

[ChristianProgressive]

That is assuming the treaty is consistent with the US Constitution.



My whole point is that even though those cited provisions were ratified, they are not consistent with the US Constitution and are void.

They are not inconsistent. The President cannot disobey a treaty that a previous president AND Congress ratified in good faith.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

White House admits Comey was fired to bring Russia investigation to an end.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/05/11/...tion-russia-sarah-huckabee-sanders/index.html

Idiots.

They are idiots, but , no they didn't.

"We want this to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity," said deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders, referring to the FBI's probe into Moscow's interference in last year's election. "And we think that we've actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen."