Page 11 of 54 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 533

Thread: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

  1. #101
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Perhaps it was just a courtesy...aka...greasing a squeaky wheel. lol
    Sure, Moot.

    The President broke the law. To be fair, it probably wasn't on purpose.

  2. #102
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Sorry, but no one buys the " signing statement " mitigation.

    Obama just "apologized" to top ranking Committee members for not informing them.

    I'm curious as to why he felt they needed a apology.

    He didn't do anything wrong, did he ?
    Apparently, signing statements have a long standing precedent in US history and so it probably doesn't matter if 'you' buy it or not.

  3. #103
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap




    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #104
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Have the Taliban ever attacked the US or it's interests outside of Afghanistan? Is it possible that the only reason they are fighting the US is because we're in their country?

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Seen
    05-09-15 @ 08:15 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,023

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Have the Taliban ever attacked the US or it's interests outside of Afghanistan? Is it possible that the only reason they are fighting the US is because we're in their country?
    That may have something to do with it.........not sure........maybe they hate us for our freedoms.......and our women are better looking........LOL

  6. #106
    Sage



    Jack Fabulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    midwest
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,728
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Have the Taliban ever attacked the US or it's interests outside of Afghanistan? Is it possible that the only reason they are fighting the US is because we're in their country?
    Is it possible that the only reason we're in their country in the first place is because they gave Al Qaeda a place to set up their base of operation and then refused to turn them over after 9-11?

  7. #107
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Sure, Moot.

    The President broke the law. To be fair, it probably wasn't on purpose.
    Why are you ignoring the SCOTUS ruling in INS v. Chadha (1983) that said it was unconstitutional for congress to put conditions on the executive branch without a bicameralism and presentment from both houses of congress? Legislating that the president must give a congressional committee a 30 day notice and then wait to get their approval before he can execute a law was ruled unconstitutional and violation of the separation of power in 1983. Therefore, the president did not break the law...congress did by passing an unconstitutional law.


    "In INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), the Supreme Court struck down
    Congress’s use of the “legislative veto,” a device used for half a century to control
    certain activities in the executive branch. Congress had delegated power to executive
    officials on the condition that Congress could control their decisions without having to
    pass another law. These legislative controls, short of a public law, included one-house
    vetoes, two-house vetoes, and committee vetoes. Congress no longer relies on onehouse
    or two-house vetoes, but committee and subcommittee vetoes continue to be a
    part of executive-legislative accommodations. This report will be updated as events
    warrant......read..."
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...jKLtScPzrigXQQ


    INS v. Chadha (1983)
    Synopsis of Rule of Law. Where the House takes actions that have the purpose and effect of altering legal rights, duties, or relations of persons outside of the legislative branch, bicameralism and presentment are required.
    INS v. Chadha | Casebriefs

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1063357286


    A congressional committee ....I.E. Senate Intelligence Committee does not represent both houses of congress and has no constitutional authority to over ride or veto the president's constitutional authority to execute the laws.

  8. #108
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Why are you ignoring the SCOTUS ruling in INS v. Chadha (1983) that said it was unconstitutional for congress to put conditions on the executive branch without a bicameralism and presentment from both houses of congress? Legislating that the president must give a congressional committee a 30 day notice and then wait to get their approval before he can execute a law was ruled unconstitutional and violation of the separation of power in 1983. Therefore, the president did not break the law...congress did by passing an unconstitutional law.
    On the contrary. A law passed by Congress and signed by the President is the law of the land until the Judiciary finds it unconstitutional. The Judiciary, not an internet poster named Moot.

    Which is why the White House already admitted that they were wrong and apologized. But you keep right on with the inanity.

  9. #109
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Fabulous View Post
    Is it possible that the only reason we're in their country in the first place is because they gave Al Qaeda a place to set up their base of operation and then refused to turn them over after 9-11?
    But Al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan now and they too have refused to turn the terrorists over. And yet, we aren't fighting the Pakistanis so why are we still fighting the Taliban?

  10. #110
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    On the contrary. A law passed by Congress and signed by the President is the law of the land until the Judiciary finds it unconstitutional. The Judiciary, not an internet poster named Moot.

    Which is why the White House already admitted that they were wrong and apologized. But you keep right on with the inanity.
    You can lead to horse to water but you can't make it drink. So here's some more water for you to ignore......


    The judiciary has ruled that the executive branch has the same constitutional authority to interpret a law as the other two branches of government and judicial review isn't necessary or needed for every law passed by congress. I.E.: checks and balances, three branches of government, separation of power, etc...

    "....A President that places the statutory law over the constitutional law in this instance would fail in his duty faithfully to execute the laws. The principle is equally sound where the Supreme Court has yet to rule on an issue, but the President has determined that a statutory law violates the Constitution.

    To say that the principle is not equally sound in this context is to deny the President's independent responsibility to interpret and uphold the Constitution. It is to leave the defense of the Constitution only to two, not three, of the branches of our government. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 274 (1990) (“The Members of the Executive and Legislative Branches are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and they presumably desire to follow its commands.”); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 613 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Members of Congress and the supervising officers of the Executive Branch take the same oath to uphold the Constitution that we do . . . .”).
    http://www.justice.gov/olc/opiniondo...gning-stmt.pdf


    "In sum, it is simply untenable that there must be a judicial remedy for every constitutional violation. Members of Congress and the supervising officers of the Executive Branch take the same oath to uphold the Constitution that we do, and sometimes they are left to perform that oath unreviewed, as we always are." - Anthony Scalia
    FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Page 11 of 54 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •