Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JamesHackerMP

  1. I meant legally. Not how to actually build the thing, lol. But Bush-Cheney answered that question. Certainly such a move would be terribly controversial.
  2. OK. But I'm still not clear on something. How could he use that to build the wall?
  3. Well if it's covert you can't really tell 535 members of congress and expect them to keep their mouths shut, lol. OK, my mistake, I'm obviously wrong.
  4. You should watch The Borgias! They're the original crime family.
  5. I admit that presidents have abused the original intent of the constitution over the years. I'm not arguing with that. The Act was meant to clear that up somewhat.
  6. Yes, but Congress was given the power to actually declare war AND make peace. It's just that after Korea and Vietnam, Congress got fed up what with those two wars being started without a proper declaration of war, or congressional consent of some sort, which is how it is SUPPOSED to work, according to the constitution. Do you have a copy of the War Powers act handy? I'd be interested to read the exact language used in the resolution.
  7. I know of the War Powers Act 1973, but I wasn't aware that immigrants hopping over the fence to come into the U.S. counted as an "attack upon the United States." Maybe Trump might think so, and maybe you're right about him trying to bend its purpose, but the courts, as you pointed out, could reverse such a decision. There have been several executive orders by the president that were shot down by federal courts. It was my understanding that the Act related only to war powers, not a perceived (or trumped-up) National "emergency". I was under the impression that the Act was meant to LIMIT the president's ability to unilaterally make war or use the military, not ENABLE him to go further. It was, after all, passed after Vietnam war officially ended, likely in response to the hubbub over the Tonkin incident.
  8. Yes, it's clear that the masses weren't intended to elect the president. I am not arguing with you in that respect. But your statement above was that a popular election for president would allow the foreign influence/meddling. he was afraid that would happen if CONGRESS were to elect him. Not the people. A popular election was not considered. This isn't because they were afraid of the meddling aspect, but because it wasn't possible. Besides, if you read Article I Section 2, it's clear that the election of congressmen, as well, were only done by propertied voters. With that sentence in the constitution, there was no reason to worry about a popular presidential election.
  9. Excuse me, but I've got the bloody thing right in front of me and I just read it. I've read a bunch of them, in fact, that's why I bought the book. I've read No. 68 before tonight, and I've just read it again. Hamilton's worry about foreign powers meddling in the president's election was, not if the PEOPLE were to elect the president directly, but if a pre-existing body--by which he means CONGRESS--were to be empowered to make the choice. The rough draft of the constitution (Report of the Committee of Detail, August 6, 1787) has no electoral college. Instead, the president is elected by Congress. That was what Hamilton was saying was dangerous; a congressional election, not a popular one. I have read that, too and have the thing in front of me as we speak. Again, you have the right idea, and an impressive command of the facts, but I believe you've misinterpreted some of it.
  10. I do believe you are taking that out of context. He said nothing about the people electing the president directly would cause the foreign powers to influence the presidential elections. You've almost got the right idea, but the details aren't quite correct.
  11. P.S., the electoral college doesn't meet in Washington. They cast their votes in their state capitals. If they were brought together as one body, the vote prostitution he mentioned would be operative.
  12. Yes, I know that. But Hamilton meant prostituting for votes among the members of CONGRESS, not foreign intervention. He mentions foreign influence, but not in the way you have suggested. You might also consider that "the people" in 1789 meant the people who owned enough property to vote.
  13. That doesn't say anywhere that the people, if given a direct vote, would elect someone by foreign influence and meddling. What you quoted said nothing about that. Also, there is no evidence that the founding fathers (the convention) ever considered a direct, national popular vote. Because it wasn't possible to do something like that in 1789 (when Washington was elected). Actually, what it says is that no member of Congress may be appointed elector by any state. It said nothing about someone who held a state office being debarred from being an elector (although these days I believe it is avoided). The convention wanted to free the presidency from congressional politics, so that the president would be able to do his job without having to "prostitute for votes" among the congressmen. That, in fact, is addressed in Federalist No. 68.
  14. How have we strayed from the intent of the electoral college? Most people didn't vote for Hillary either. When you get right down to it, nobody won a majority of popular votes, only a plurality. Pretty sure it doesn't say that in Federalist 68. Can you quote where it says that? I've got the book right with me, and I can't find where he says that.
  15. No he can't. There are no "emergency powers" in the constitution that would enable him to make laws without the permission of Congress. The only real emergency powers he can use are for natural disasters, and the authority to execute those powers lie, not with the federal government, but with the governor of the affected state. Trump can try, but he has no authority to do so. Unfortunately, this thread seems to have drifted into the territory of personality conflicts (by the way...)
  16. You don't demonstrate a basic knowledge of how the U.S. government works. Presidents don't have "emergency powers" as they do in some other democracies. This isn't Star Wars episode II after all. We don't vote emergency powers to the president. Congress (not the president) can suspend habeas corpus, IF and ONLY IF the United States is in imminent danger of invasion or rebellion. Flip through the constitution, you'll find nothing about emergency powers like that. As I understand it, the Canadian PM usually doesn't have much "trouble" passing legislation. The parliamentary system relies on force, whereas a presidential system requires compromise. Your PM has weapons at his disposal the likes of which even Richard Nixon could only dream. Presidents do have a lot of power, but the constitution denies him the authority to actually legislate. He can propose legislation (recommend to Congress measures for their consideration). He can influence the legislative process somewhat. He can approve legislation, or even prevent it from coming into being via the veto (which Congress can override by 2/3 vote btw.) But he cannot ever, ever MAKE the law or dictate legislation. Anything he recommends to congress can come back to his desk completely changed by Congress, even when both houses are from the same party as the president. It's called separation of powers and it's done like that for a good reason. He's called the president--and not the Supreme Chancellor--for a reason. I think some of you need to do a little more research on the United States and its government. You mentioned some facts, but you don't have it quite right.
  17. That's a little fatalistic. The parties have changed over time, and they'll continue to do so to hang on--or try to hang on--to power. Your last sentence isn't quite correct.
  18. No one has $22,000,000,000,000. If we printed that much paper money we'd have a trifle of an inflation problem in this country. You don't seem to know much about economics. (By the way, countries don't really "print money" to increase the money supply anymore, only 2% of all currency in the U.S. is paper and coins. It's mostly digital.) Can you prove any of this? Or at least back it up with a media source (in English please, most of us don't speak Turkish.) How do you know the Pentagon was behind the attacks, anyway? Did the Secretary of Defense tell you this in a private meeting, just the two of you? Who are we planning to assassinate? Did the Director of the CIA tell you this personally?
  19. I'll have to check it out! Hopefully they have it for Kindle. (Which I have found saves shelf space.)
  20. Shogun is taking so long I'm pondering watching the mini series. :/ What books are the Expanse based on?
  21. I have some great pictures--or had some, rather--of Roman ruins. I went to Pompeii and also the forum romanum.
  • Create New...