..and they are barred from using the postal service until the president is done!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I am trying to say, is that nowhere has it been said in US law that the POTUS is the sole source of diplomacy. Nowhere does it say in US law that a SITTING member of Congress or even the Supreme Court Justice cannot engage in diplomacy on their own initiative, as part of the Government of these United States.
There is simply nothing in the Constitution prohibiting this. And for this discusion, lesser laws simply do not apply, State Dept regulations do not apply, Executive Orders do not apply. We are simply talking about Constitutional authority.
There is simply no legal basis for any court decisions to impact this, because no SITTING member of Congress or the Supreme Court or even a SITTING Vice President has ever been taken to court over this.
No POTUS has ever attempted to charge a SITTING member of Congress with anything (dealing with this discussion).
So can we assume on this basis, that ALL of the Presidents have not considered this to be illegal, and NONE have never pressed any charges, so that ALL of the Presidents HAVE IN FACT considered it to be legal?
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
I can't find anywhere in the Constitution where the Curtis-Wright Export Corp has a seat in Congress or the Supreme Court, so why are you bringing them into this discussion?
Because the case itself is relevant.
In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.
thejeff, yes it is all politics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Krensky, reread the whole document and you will find that the powers of each branch are not wholly contained within each Article.
If no SITTING member of Congress has ever been taken to court in this matter, it stands to reason that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue.
The Logan Act has never been tested.
LBJ and Nixon were both wrong on many things, you'll have to be more specific since they were both POTUS during the Vietnam War.
Basicly, I'm not wrong since I'm merely arguing a political point that cannot be disproved;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orfamay Quest, the reason the case is not relevant is that it does not consider whether a sitting member of congress steps on the presidents toes.
The courts decision is not binding upon the Congress, as the Congress was not party to the case, nor anywhere is there any indication that the Congress considers itself bound to the rulings of that court regarding Congress' authority under the Constitution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the president doesn't like a law that is about to be passed, he will often issue a VETO THREAT. President Obama has often done this, although he is not allowed to pass a law.
Senators did not like a treaty they would have to ratify, so the THREATENED not to ratify it.
These are political moves, and part of the checks and balances the different branches have on each other. It would make our inefficient government even more inefficient if congress was not allowed to find out what laws the president would pass and the president was not allowed to find out what treaties the senate would ratify until they were finalized.
President Obama has chastised the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address for political purposes because they ruled in a manner he did not like.
Senators announced they would not sign a treaty they did not like before the treaty was negotiated for political purposes.
Partisan politics is at an all time high on both sides. The American people have elected lawyers to congress, a profession trained to argue and split up wealth rather than compromise and create wealth.
The problem is.. whens the last time the senate actually ratified a treaty?
Ronald regan used 1600 unratified agreements. Compare that to about 1 treaty a year , if that. So apparently in practice we're not running on a treaty system with other countires, so their threat is kinda toothless.
If no SITTING member of Congress has ever been taken to court in this matter, it stands to reason that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue.
To the best of my knowledge, no SITTING member of Congress has ever been taken to court for murder. Based on your logic, laws against murder don't apply to members of Congress.
he courts decision is not binding upon the Congress, as the Congress was not party to the case, nor anywhere is there any indication that the Congress considers itself bound to the rulings of that court regarding Congress' authority under the Constitution.
Congress isn't the body that decides whether or not it is subject to the rulings of the SCOTUS. The body that does make that decision has explicitly stated that "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the best of my knowledge, no SITTING member of Congress has ever been taken to court for murder. Based on your logic, laws against murder don't apply to members of Congress.
You might be onto more than you know...
Congress isn't the body that decides whether or not it is subject to the rulings of the SCOTUS. The body that does make that decision has explicitly stated that "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
I'd be curious how such an act wouldn't run into a freedom of speech violation. I can tell Iran anything I want to, so can a congressperson.
Contributor
|
Freedom of speech, like all other rights, is not absolute. Your right to shout "Fire!" does not shield you from the consequences of doing so in a theatre.
To the best of my knowledge, no SITTING member of Congress has ever been taken to court for murder. Based on your logic, laws against murder don't apply to members of Congress.You might be onto more than you know...
Congress isn't the body that decides whether or not it is subject to the rulings of the SCOTUS. The body that does make that decision has explicitly stated that "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."I'd be curious how such an act wouldn't run into a freedom of speech violation. I can tell Iran anything I want to, so can a congressperson.
Look out. People don't like that example. :)
Fun revolutionary treason fact:
That example comes from the decision of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the prosecution of Socialists speaking against America's entry into World War I.
Look out. People don't like that example. :)
Freedom of speech, like all other rights, is not absolute. Your right to shout "Fire!" does not shield you from the consequences of doing so in a theatre.
I'm sure they don't. I know I don't like all of the case law out there, but I can't simply wish it away as so many people seem to do on these messageboards.
Yes, I'd be happier if case law said what I wanted it to say instead of what it actually said. Free speech absolutists would be much happier if the Schenk decision had read "The First Amendment can never be infringed upon under any circumstances."
.... but it didn't. And it doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Freedom of speech, like all other rights, is not absolute. Your right to shout "Fire!" does not shield you from the consequences of doing so in a theatre.
"My government is lying to you" , "I will do everything I can to undermine this deal", "this is how our constitution set this up", "I don't trust you to uphold your end of the bargain", "Grarrg me angry obama doing things", and every message regarding a political treaty I can think of are not limited forms of speech. Short of revealing classified information I'm at a loss to think of anything a congresscritter could say that would not be protected.
Just because the speech is dangerous does not limit it. Newspaper reports about the vietnam war were dangerous to our war effort and were allowed to be printed.
Just because the speech is dangerous does not limit it.
Goodness, no. Speech being dangerous is explicitly one reason it can be limited.
There are others as well.
I'm sure that in an alternate universe where Curtiss-Wright had been decided differently, case law would say different things and we'd be having a completely different discussion. But I prefer to confine my analysis of real-world political events to the real universe instead of the imaginary ones where the SCOTUS has to take direction from me instead of the other way around.
Goodness, no. Speech being dangerous is explicitly one reason it can be limited.
Just because the speech is dangerous does not limit it.
It has to be dangerous AND false. You can in fact shout fire in a crowded theater if there is a fire.
There are others as well.
I'm sure that in an alternate universe where Curtiss-Wright had been decided differently, case law would say different things and we'd be having a completely different discussion.
I'm sorry, but I'm looking at the case now and have NO idea how this pertains to the current discussion. "Here, buy some guns" is NOT a speech issue, its a materials issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is what is considered treason today. For those of you that do not know about the Thomas Drake case, a man had a $3M program that did not spy on Americans, could have stopped 9/11 and replaced a $4B program that did spy on Americans and he is tried for treason.
Link to Thin Thread - License to Spill - Daily Show
If dissenting information can't make it to the press, our country is in trouble.
By the way, this is pretty funny.
So this is the guy that is arrested for treason. To quote Thomas Drake: "They criminalized first amendment rights."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those of you interested, the treatment of Thomas Drake DIRECTLY led to Edward Snowden's actions. No documentation of the corruption in the government ever was released from the Thomas Drake case so according to Thomas Drake......
Edward Snowden recognized what had been occurring over the past number of years. He saw what happened to me and others and he knew with what he was what he was witness to it was clearly in the public interest but, how do you get it out in a way that can actually be made available to the public so they can actually make up their own minds about what their government’s been doing in secret behind their backs without their consent? And in this particular case, with all that’s happened and transpired since 9/11, he had to escape the United States to have any hope ensuring that the material could actually get in the right hands for disclosure, through reporters and journalists—and that was in the persons of Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras—and also have any chance of securing or ensuring his own freedom, recognizing that the United States would throw everything to go after him and bring him back.
In his case, he knew he would have to have prima facie evidence. The prima facie evidence that I had goes all the way to back to the 2001-2002 time period but that was given to official government investigators and tragically as it turns out was completely censored and suppressed. And the unclassified information I brought out that was removed by the FBI during their unceremonious raid of my residence and car and my office down at the National Defense University but mostly at my house—That was culpable evidence in terms of government conduct. They removed that off the streets so no one knew about it.
The point to the OP is dissent cannot be mercilessly quashed as it is today. Treating the senators as treasonous produces Edward Snowdens. Who led the hunt for Edward Snowden and wouldn't grant him a full pardon when he tried to see if there was a way for him to return to the US before he fled to Russia?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point to the OP is dissent cannot be mercilessly quashed as it is today. Treating the senators as treasonous produces Edward Snowdens.
Dissent is mercilessly quashed today? Is that why Fox News was taken out with tactical airstrikes? Why Breitbart was scrubbed from the internet? Why NewsMax was summarily disappeared? Why these senators were forced to publicly apologize?
Also, are you suggesting that more Edward Snowdens is a bad thing? If you want the truth exposed, you'd be hoping for more whistleblowers, I would think.
Fox news is the military money making machine. THAT'S what you can't dissent from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fox news is the military money making machine. THAT'S what you can't dissent from.
How did we ever hear about Abu Ghraib? Why was Invisible War allowed to be made? How does Bernie Sanders continue to not only live, but be a senator?
I guess I must have missed the quashing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone famous once said "Trust but verify." I don't remember who it was or what political party they belonged. Senate republicans could learn from that person though.
Fox news is the military money making machine. THAT'S what you can't dissent from.
How did we ever hear about Abu Ghraib? Why was Invisible War allowed to be made? How does Bernie Sanders continue to not only live, but be a senator?
I guess I must have missed the quashing.
1) Amnesty International's Middle East Program (Wikipedia)
2) Large sections of even the American Empire are against sexually assaulting American servicewomen.
It's really easy to overstate the case of quashing dissent in the US today, but I don't think those are terribly good counterexamples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone famous once said "Trust but verify." I don't remember who it was or what political party they belonged. Senate republicans could learn from that person though.
I preferred "I don't remember."
Someone famous once said "Trust but verify." I don't remember who it was or what political party they belonged. Senate republicans could learn from that person though.I preferred "I don't remember."
Also, are you suggesting that more Edward Snowdens is a bad thing? If you want the truth exposed, you'd be hoping for more whistleblowers, I would think.
When the government allows an Edward Snowden to reduce US prestige and credibility by having him pants you publicly rather than allow Thomas Drake charges made through the Chain of Command and the Inspector General (oversight agencies) and correct the problem internally, that is a bad thing.
So here is my order of preference
1 - The system works and oversight agencies and constitutionally directed checks and balances fixes things before a whistleblower has to defect to an adversary and reveal lots of state secrets. Complaints that make people look bad at high levels are still investigated.
2 - We have courageous whistleblowers that come forward or write letters to papers at risk to their careers.
3 - No one comes forward at all and big government does its thing.
Fox news is the military money making machine. THAT'S what you can't dissent from.
How did we ever hear about Abu Ghraib? Why was Invisible War allowed to be made? How does Bernie Sanders continue to not only live, but be a senator?
I guess I must have missed the quashing.
...
Dissent which has no chance of threatening vested interests is allowed and encouraged to continue illusions of freedom, upward mobility, and egalitarian opportunity.
I bet nobody would have thought that Twitter would ever be a threat to dictatorships, but there it was playing a key role in the Arab Spring.
It's not that the sources aren't a threat, it's that the people aren't. As much as you hear Tea Party types and neo Libertarians complain about the government, they aren't complaining because they dislike government restriction and/or action, they're complaining because it's not restrictive and/or acting in the ways they prefer. It was the same way with Liberal and Progressive people complaining in the Bush years. They are willing to complain, have a rally here or there, maybe vote. There's no need to crack down on sources because the people aren't a threat.
Besides, does the idea that the government is driven by money, and has a problem with people taking advantage of that fact really surprise anyone? Rolling back of civil rights in secrecy is more worrying, but even then it shouldn't be surprising, since this particular round began with the public (and publicly approved) passage of the "Patriot" act. People too often forget that freedom and security exist in an inverse relationship.
What should be noted is that the bulk of the folks in Congress who voted on the Patriot act... didn't even read it.Fox news is the military money making machine. THAT'S what you can't dissent from.
How did we ever hear about Abu Ghraib? Why was Invisible War allowed to be made? How does Bernie Sanders continue to not only live, but be a senator?
I guess I must have missed the quashing.
...
Dissent which has no chance of threatening vested interests is allowed and encouraged to continue illusions of freedom, upward mobility, and egalitarian opportunity.I bet nobody would have thought that Twitter would ever be a threat to dictatorships, but there it was playing a key role in the Arab Spring.
It's not that the sources aren't a threat, it's that the people aren't. As much as you hear Tea Party types and neo Libertarians complain about the government, they aren't complaining because they dislike government restriction and/or action, they're complaining because it's not restrictive and/or acting in the ways they prefer. It was the same way with Liberal and Progressive people complaining in the Bush years. They are willing to complain, have a rally here or there, maybe vote. There's no need to crack down on sources because the people aren't a threat.
Besides, does the idea that the government is driven by money, and has a problem with people taking advantage of that fact really surprise anyone? Rolling back of civil rights in secrecy is more worrying, but even then it shouldn't be surprising, since this particular round began with the public (and publicly approved) passage of the "Patriot" act. People too often forget that freedom and security exist in an inverse relationship.
Right. The idea was "the people demand action to ensure their safety, therefore action"
Even once the civil rights issues were exposed, people still supported it, thus the " why worry, if you don't have anything to hide" idea.
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said something to the effect of "Those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither". Yet many people were eagre to make that trade.
Only 60/100 Senators are lawyers? I'm impressed that the number is that low.One's an ex-astronaut, another a former comedian. We've had at governoers whose prior careers were actors and professional wrestlers. In the Media Age, requirements to be electable are a lot different now.
Ronald Reagen, the other God of the Republican party, was an actor.
You mean they have a God Before HIM??Ronald Reagen, the other God of the Republican party, was an actor.Only 60/100 Senators are lawyers? I'm impressed that the number is that low.One's an ex-astronaut, another a former comedian. We've had at governoers whose prior careers were actors and professional wrestlers. In the Media Age, requirements to be electable are a lot different now.
the bible says they can't!
|
Contributor
|
the bible says they can't!You mean they have a God Before HIM??Ronald Reagen, the other God of the Republican party, was an actor.Only 60/100 Senators are lawyers? I'm impressed that the number is that low.One's an ex-astronaut, another a former comedian. We've had at governoers whose prior careers were actors and professional wrestlers. In the Media Age, requirements to be electable are a lot different now.
They'd have to start reading it...
I remember a Daily Show clip.
Let's talk about God... *clip of the typical old testament representation shows up.* Not him, the Real God.. *portrait of Ronald Reagan.*
sadly, our realest source of news.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given your generally central/libertarian bent, I'm really surprised that you'd consider The Daily Show worth watching.sadly, our realest source of news.I remember a Daily Show clip.
Let's talk about God... *clip of the typical old testament representation shows up.* Not him, the Real God.. *portrait of Ronald Reagan.*
Huge fan. Never miss a show. I actually hobbled to see a taping back in august?.
Libertarian is where the left and right meet if they're serious about free speech and non government interference in peoples lives including things that you don't like. The rights just been selectively using those as a screen to cover "we don't like government regulation that costs us money"
I'm not a libertarian when it comes to money above and beyond what people need, which makes me a left wing loon under our current political schema, and I'm pretty left wing on the environment.
I think you might notice the more central patches because thats where we disagree, and posts lobing ideas back and forth stick out more than when i just chuckle and favorite your posts :)