• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl If I

Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

Congress not told of swap because Taliban threatened to kill Bergdahl if it leaked
This news is just now breaking and this is all the info on it now. If this is true, does this change the situation a lot or anything?

Seriously. The administration needs to stop lying about this. The Taliban made this offer public more than a year ago. Do they really think the media won't check them?
 
Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

I am neither dem nor rep and I could care less if what he did was illegal - I assume every POTUS does something illegal every week and that Congress does something illegal every day.

But what makes this development really interesting to me is that the administration now admits - indirectly - that they negotiated with terrorists (something many libs were denying citing the Taliban as not officially 'terrorists' according to the State Department).

But if they threatened to kill their hostage/POW/whatever if the President did something...clearly, these ARE terrorists....that is what terrorists do. You don't do that with POW's...you do that with hostages.


So, as far as I am concerned, it is official, the Obama administration negotiated with terrorists.

That is pathetic.

If Dems in Washington do not wash their hands of this pathetic action by the POTUS, then I hope they get annihilated in November.
 
Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution not every law the Legislative branch pumps out regardless of its constitutionality. Whether or not his actions violate an unconstitutional law is irrelevant.

Little bit of advice...if you debate against the strawman created within your mind based on your prejudices towards those who identify as "conservative", as opposed to debating against things I actually say, you're going to have a bad time.

No where did I suggest the President must uphold every law pumped out by the Legislative branch. No where did I say that the president shouldn't forgo action he feels is unconstitutional.

Here's what I've said.

First, the President of the United States has no power under our form of government to revoke or rescind a law due to being "unconstitutional". From a legal and governmental standard, the President's opinion regarding the constitutionality of a law is irrelevant to the notion of whether or not said law REMAINS A LAW. The President declaring something as unconstitutional has zero impact as to whether or not that law remains on the books.

So in this instance, whether or not Obama feels this law is consitutiontal or not, it is still THE LAW. It is the law until Congress votes to revoke it or the Courts overturn it. The President can choose not to ENFORCE it, but that doesn't cause the law to cease to exist.

Second, action taken that does not adhere to the law is a violation of the law. It might be a "justified" violation, it might be a violation that will be ignored, or it might be a violation that results in penalty......but in ALL cases it is still a violation.

The Administration took action in violation of the law because they believe that law to be unconstitutional and thus they believe they're justified in violating it; but none of that changes that it was a violation of the law.
 
Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

Little bit of advice...if you debate against the strawman created within your mind based on your prejudices towards those who identify as "conservative", as opposed to debating against things I actually say, you're going to have a bad time.

No where did I suggest the President must uphold every law pumped out by the Legislative branch. No where did I say that the president shouldn't forgo action he feels is unconstitutional.

Here's what I've said.

First, the President of the United States has no power under our form of government to revoke or rescind a law due to being "unconstitutional". From a legal and governmental standard, the President's opinion regarding the constitutionality of a law is irrelevant to the notion of whether or not said law REMAINS A LAW. The President declaring something as unconstitutional has zero impact as to whether or not that law remains on the books.

So in this instance, whether or not Obama feels this law is consitutiontal or not, it is still THE LAW. It is the law until Congress votes to revoke it or the Courts overturn it. The President can choose not to ENFORCE it, but that doesn't cause the law to cease to exist.

Second, action taken that does not adhere to the law is a violation of the law. It might be a "justified" violation, it might be a violation that will be ignored, or it might be a violation that results in penalty......but in ALL cases it is still a violation.

The Administration took action in violation of the law because they believe that law to be unconstitutional and thus they believe they're justified in violating it; but none of that changes that it was a violation of the law.


Like I said, violating an unconstitutional law is irrelevant.
 
Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

Like I said, violating an unconstitutional law is irrelevant.

No law is unconstitutional until the SCOTUS finds it so. The President does not have the authority to decide whether a law is constitutional.:peace
 
Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

No law is unconstitutional until the SCOTUS finds it so. The President does not have the authority to decide whether a law is constitutional.:peace



Like it or not, the office of the President has done so for 192 years and it makes sense.
 
Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

Like it or not, the office of the President has done so for 192 years and it makes sense.

Where in the world did you get that idea?:peace
 
Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

Where in the world did you get that idea?:peace

Presidents have issued signing statements regarding their views on the Constitutionality of certain portions of law and their intent either not to enforce it or do so in a way which is contrary to the law, but which they view to be Constitutional, since James Monroe. Every President since has exercised this authority and, so far, it has remained unchallenged.
 
Last edited:
Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

Presidents have issued signing statements regarding their views on the Constitutionality of certain portions of law and their intent either not to enforce it or do so in a way which is contrary to the law, but which they view to be Constitutional, since James Monroe. Every President since has exercised this authority and, so far, it has remained unchallenged.

Well, not exactly.:peace

[h=3]Signing statement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statementWikipedia


Jump to Presidential usage - [edit]. The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe. Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing ...‎Types - ‎Applying a metric to signing ... - ‎Legal significance
 
Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

They were rarely substantive until RWR, and have been condemned by the ABA. SCOTUS has dismissed them when they have figured in cases.:peace
 
Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

They were rarely substantive until RWR...

The very first one was in regards to the President's view of the constitutionality of a provision of law.

...and have been condemned by the ABA..

:eek:

SCOTUS has dismissed them when they have figured in cases.:peace

Which only means they may have disagreed with the President's conclusion; not his authority to issue them.
 
Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

The very first one was in regards to the President's view of the constitutionality of a provision of law.



:eek:



Which only means they may have disagreed with the President's conclusion; not his authority to issue them.

No. SCOTUS does not regard them as having any legal weight. I'm not going to debate this. Believe what you wish.:peace
 
Re: Officials: Congress Not Told of Swap Because Taliban Threatened to Kill Bergdahl

Like I said, violating an unconstitutional law is irrelevant.

That's true. However, whether or not the law IS unconstitutional is up to interpritation at this point as the only authority to deem it such with any air of finality is the SCOTUS. Contrary to what you may desire, you don't have a magic wand to wave and declare things to be "irrelevant". Clearly there is concern over the potential violation of the law, and that concern is present by some on both sides of the aisle, so reality seems to contradict your notion that it's "irrelevant". To what extent it has relevance has yet to be determined.

But I must say, an excellent job of moving the goal posts. Going from attempting to counter someone claiming he broke the law, to now trying to present your argument that it doesn't MATTER that he broke the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom