Favorite team:Air Force 
Location:South
Biography:
Interests:Dominating in football
Occupation:
Number of Posts:26122
Registered on:1/2/2008
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
I don't really talk about this, but my Dad was a mailman who loved Bad Bunny.
They should call the stolen land police.
It can't be stolen if no one is illegal. Way to flame the board, dummy.
Chuck is good on many things, but he has no idea what he's dealing with in today's atmosphere. He's still in the senate gentlemen delusion that's been dead for decades.
Not really. Denmark had the right to veto any military installations and we did not have the right to install ballistic missile sites, the whole point of wanting that location. Now, Denmark is reportedly no longer able to veto US military plans in Green-a-Lago.
Just as long as we are clear that you were completely wrong about both the state of the law and practice in this area since the founding. Your disagreement on how it may turn out is a long way away from your original thesis. I admire when someone can admit they were wrong. :cheers:
And yet they are treated the same. Two things don't have to be the same to be treated the same. Congress can pass federal criminal law on wildlife export and authorize money for conflicts abroad. But but but those aren't the same thing! So what? The mechanism is the same.
Sure it is. The Senate exercises advise and consent on nominations and the president can then unilaterally fire cabinet heads, recall ambassadors, fire us attorneys. It would actually fit much better in the framework for it to be as everyone since Washington assumed.

Also, the congress attempted to impose this condition in the 2024 ndaa, not as a ratification of NATO which occurred in 1949.
All I ever said was it would be an interesting exercise, you responded that it was a decided issue, which it is not. I would imagine the supreme court would continue to abstain. Also, I'm not sure what you are saying scotus might hold.
quote:

And when Congress requires approval before withdrawal as a condition of its approval?


Why would they even have to do that if the president didn't have that power, though. QED.
Congress purports to do things all the time that are beyond its power. Check out, for instance, the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act. Unconstitutional waiver of state sovereign immunity. Just one example.
quote:

What would be the point of a requirement that the Senate approve of a treaty if POTUS can unilaterally withdraw from it?


Washington and Jefferson apparently disagree with you. The president must receive advice and consent to enter obligations to other countries, but can terminate obligations under his foreign affair article II powers.
I prefer to think you were ignorant rather than dumb. Your call.
No it won't. The supreme court abstained under its political question doctrine. Congress would have to impeach and convict that the senate is required to terminate. That's the landscape. Interesting that you would speak so definitively on the issue given you haven't really looked at it.

As to impeachment, would be very difficult to justify given Washington, Jefferson, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump twice have all done it unilaterally.
The source is article II section 2, DOJ opinions, and the practical experience from president Washington to Trump of doing so.

See also Goldwater v. Carter where the supreme court abstained from the question.
Making treaties. The president has always had the power to withdraw from them.
quote:

Besides, only an act of Congress or a 2/3rds Senate vote can withdraw us from NATO. That isn’t happening and President Trump cannot do it on his own.


Would be an interesting exercise. Article II power versus a law from Congress purporting to curtail that power. The conventional thinking for years is withdrawal is an exclusive Article II power.
You don't really have a risk of not finding anything. You have a great case of felony murder on video. She should stand trial for it.
Hopefully they charge her with felony murder.