Jump to content

JamesHackerMP

Member
  • Posts

    1,097
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by JamesHackerMP

  1. 7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

     

    Since 1973, Congress has demanded little more than a supporting resolution for major actions by presidents, and even less for the covert stuff (just briefings for the Armed Forces and Intelligence committees).   As you know, it is all part of the historical tension between Executive and Congressional branches of government, tilting a president's way for now.

    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.

  2. 1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

     

    True, but the WPA was carefully written to not impede a president's immediate responsibility and duty to engage threats to U.S. or allied interests while limiting the duration of such action without review by Congress.  

    The U.S. already has a previous history with "attacks" from Mexico (e.g. Pancho Villa ) in the early 20th century.

    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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

    • Like 1
  7. 9 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

    The populace would vote for the electoral college. The electoral  college would in turn go to Washington and choose the most qualified person.

    Here  are Hamilton’s words on who chooses the president from federalist 68. 

     

    “..men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

    The framers expected each state to elect well respected people not associated with any political office, those people were to be entrusted with choosing the president.

    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.

  8. 3 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

    Corruption of an electoral process could most likely arise from the desire of "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." To minimize risk of foreign machinations and inducements, the electoral college would have only a "transient existence" and no elector could be a "senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States"; electors would make their choice in a "detached situation", whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes".

    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.

  9. 3 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

    The populace would vote for the electoral college. The electoral  college would in turn go to Washington and choose the most qualified person.

    Here  are Hamilton’s words on who chooses the president from federalist 68. 

     

    “..men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

    The framers expected each state to elect well respected people not associated with any political office, those people were to be entrusted with choosing the president.

    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.

     

  10. 44 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

    Most people didn’t vote for trump. The reason  soneone like trump could be elected  is because you strayed from the framers intent of the EC. 

    HAMILTON in federalist 68 even warned if the masses were allowed to vote for president they could be subject to foreign influence. How’s that for a premonition?

    You  failed your democracy.

    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.

  11. On 1/20/2019 at 3:57 PM, Boges said:

    Really? so it hasn't been floated that Trump could declare an Emergency and use DOD funding to get a wall built. 

    You'd think it'd get challenged in court immediately but many seem to think that's the only way out of this issue. 

    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...)

  12. On 1/9/2019 at 9:40 AM, Boges said:

    What's a concern about this administration and American politics in general. Is that they're so polarized now that drastic measures like Government Shutdowns and Declarations of Emergency are being thought of as tools to pass run-of-the-mill legislation. 

    It would be like if a Canadian PM threatened to use the War Measures Act every time it had trouble passing legislation. 

    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.

    • Like 1
  13. On 11/12/2018 at 6:31 PM, -TSS- said:

    There has been speculation that as the whites in the USA will fall below the 50% mark unless the Republicans somehow reinvent themselves and get rid of the stigma of being a rich old white men's party they may be permanently out of power in the future. Trump could be the last Republican president.

    Namely, the voting-behaviour of the black and Hispanic people has remained more or less the same over decades. It is only the whites' votes which swing back and forth. The blacks vote for the Democrats 90-10 and the Hispanics vote for the Democrats 70-30.

    Demography is destiny. The Republicans are not going to disappear totally; no doubt they will still be strong at the state-level in many states but they may be permanently out at the federal level.

    That could spell the end for the two-party system in the USA as it is impossible that after some time when there has been a Democratic President and Democratic Congress that people wouldn't feel a need for a change. Some new alternative may rise.

    ma

    t

    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. 

  14. 6 hours ago, Altai said:

    - Pentagon attacked US soldiers under ISIS cover and kills 4 of them in Syrian town Manbij after Trump says that ISIS is over and there is no reason to stay more in Syria.

    - Pentagon attacks to a hotel in Kenya's Westland region, which is known as MI6 headquarters in Kenya and murdered 21 people.

    - US threatens Turkiye by making travel warning to US citizens again. 

    - Rothschilds caused the shut down of US government to activate specific powers of presidency. Trump changed the positions of 49 state officials including 7 persons in Pentagon. 

    What powers of the presidency?

  15. On 1/8/2019 at 4:36 AM, Altai said:

    - Many Turkish soldiers who works for US are jailed after the recent coup attempt, some of them are held in single person cells. 

    -  Some of the jailed soldiers want to be confessors. US is disturbed by this possibility and trying to create partnerships with Turkiye to soften the environment. 

    - Britain wants Turkiye-US relationship to be deteriorate more and keeps pressure on soldiers to make them perform some confessions. 

    - Mike Pence is trying to keep soldiers silent.

    - US is also thinking to rise military tension between US and Turkish Armies but it costs 22 Trillion Dollar for US and currently US is not able to meet such a cost. 

    - US is planning to meet 5 Trillion $ of it from Saudi Arabia and some Gulf countries and meet 12 Trillion $ of it by printing in the FED. 

    -  FED is controlled by Rothschilds and Rothschilds rejects to help Pentagon for such a budget. 

    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?

  16. 15 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

    Set a couple of hundred years in the future it's confined to the Solar System. (Where I'm up to, anyway.  Near the end of the first book)

    Earth, Mars and the Asteroid Belt are separate political entities and they don't get along that well.  The protagonists are a jaded Belter cop and a more idealistic cargo ship captain who are thrust together by circumstances in opposition to the bad guys, who seem to be working to weaponize a virus of alien origin. 

    It's not not up there with the best SF I've read but it is easy to read and very enjoyable.

    I'll have to check it out! Hopefully they have it for Kindle. (Which I have found saves shelf space.)

×
×
  • Create New...