Patentmike said:

---

Seems everyone is ignoring the part of the deferral act that may be most important here...

2 USC 681 (1). Nothing in the act concedes the constitutional powers of the President.


One of the President's Constitutional Powers is in conducting foreign policy. Because of this, there is a pretty good argument that the ICA does not apply to appropriations for foreign government obligations.

Another detail that stems from the above. Congress's only complaint under ICA is that Trump did not send notice. In this case, the notice would almost certainly have interfered with the conduct of diplomacy (the notice would have been published). So, one construction is that the notice provision infringed on the executive's constitutional authority and therefore was inapplicable.

Lastly, Congress was in recess during the month of August. The deferral was released the week they came back. Thus, the lack of notice had no effect on Congress exercising any authority because they were not in session and therefore in position to do so.

---

Patentmike said:

---

Seems everyone is ignoring the part of the deferral act that may be most important here...

2 USC 681 (1). Nothing in the act concedes the constitutional powers of the President.


One of the President's Constitutional Powers is in conducting foreign policy. Because of this, there is a pretty good argument that the ICA does not apply to appropriations for foreign government obligations.

Another detail that stems from the above. Congress's only complaint under ICA is that Trump did not send notice. In this case, the notice would almost certainly have interfered with the conduct of diplomacy (the notice would have been published). So, one construction is that the notice provision infringed on the executive's constitutional authority and therefore was inapplicable.

Lastly, Congress was in recess during the month of August. The deferral was released the week they came back. Thus, the lack of notice had no effect on Congress exercising any authority because they were not in session and therefore in position to do so.

---

Quote:

---

Petitioner Zivotofsky was born to United States citizens living in Jerusalem. Pursuant to 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, his mother asked American Embassy officials to list his place of birth as "Israel" on, inter alia, his passport. Section 214(d) states for "purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen's legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel." The Embassy officials refused to list Zivotofsky's place of birth as "Israel" on his passport, citing the Executive Branch's longstanding position that the United States does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. Zivotofsky's parents brought suit on his behalf in federal court, seeking to enforce 214(d). Ultimately, the D. C. Circuit held the statute unconstitutional, concluding that it contradicts the Executive Branch's exclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns.

---

captkirk said:

---

That's got to be a rough blow to Chance's worldview

---

Quote:

---

It'd be nice if just one leftist would be intellectually honest for a change.

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

The GAO's lawyers are investigating if the Impoundment Act was violated so we'll see definitively who's right eventually.

We do know from document dumps that OMB was scrambling for an after the fact justification which they still haven't provided.

They told the Pentagon to keep it quiet.

Mark Sandy testified he had never seen anything like this happen before.

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

The GAO's lawyers are investigating if the Impoundment Act was violated so we'll see definitively who's right eventually.

We do know from document dumps that OMB was scrambling for an after the fact justification which they still haven't provided.

They told the Pentagon to keep it quiet.

Mark Sandy testified he had never seen anything like this happen before.

---

aginlakeway said:

---

So you didn't answer my question. How much are we wagering on the 2020 election? I'll take Trump.

---

agsalaska said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

So you didn't answer my question. How much are we wagering on the 2020 election? I'll take Trump.

---

I'm in too. But he will continue to ignore it

---

Patentmike said:

---

What's he going to do when the Chief Justice issues a bench warrant for the Marshalls to bring him forceably.

---

Patentmike said:

---

What's he going to do when the Chief Justice issues a bench warrant for the Marshalls to bring him forceably.

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

What's he going to do when the Chief Justice issues a bench warrant for the Marshalls to bring him forceably.

---

Roberts ain't gonna do that. He's worthless. I like the Bushes okay, but they could have been better. Roberts is W's biggest fail.

---

Prognightmare said:

---

Nope, pullback our forces to a safe distance and tactical nuke the mountain range. The first use of nuclear weapons since WW2 would have sent a message to all these countries supporting terrorists that they could meet the same fate. Iraq, Iran, Africa etc. would have seen our resolve. Plus we had the world support at that time, all we needed was resolve.

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

Nope, pullback our forces to a safe distance and tactical nuke the mountain range. The first use of nuclear weapons since WW2 would have sent a message to all these countries supporting terrorists that they could meet the same fate. Iraq, Iran, Africa etc. would have seen our resolve. Plus we had the world support at that time, all we needed was resolve.

---

Our elected leader didn't even have the resolve to stick with the original name Tommy Franks gave to the operation , i.e. Operation Infinite Justice. The moderate Muslims leaders advising W complained that only allah could dispense infinite justice so they changed it to Enduring Freedom instead. With the benefit of 18 years of hindsight it would have been more apt to name it Enduring Attrition.

---

titan said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

Nope, pullback our forces to a safe distance and tactical nuke the mountain range. The first use of nuclear weapons since WW2 would have sent a message to all these countries supporting terrorists that they could meet the same fate. Iraq, Iran, Africa etc. would have seen our resolve. Plus we had the world support at that time, all we needed was resolve.

---

Our elected leader didn't even have the resolve to stick with the original name Tommy Franks gave to the operation , i.e. Operation Infinite Justice. The moderate Muslims leaders advising W complained that only allah could dispense infinite justice so they changed it to Enduring Freedom instead. With the benefit of 18 years of hindsight it would have been more apt to name it Enduring Attrition.

---

Yes, it was remarkably timid and a good example of the pre-Trump wobbling despite a Pearl Harbor level of provocation. Forgot about the tactical nuke option -- it might have been the way to go --- its the message you need. Just don't really want to use the atomics again first if it can be avoided. But the re-naming of the Operation was a good example of where the "you are not in any position to quibble" posture was sorely lacking.

---

goodag90 said:

---

titan said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

Nope, pullback our forces to a safe distance and tactical nuke the mountain range. The first use of nuclear weapons since WW2 would have sent a message to all these countries supporting terrorists that they could meet the same fate. Iraq, Iran, Africa etc. would have seen our resolve. Plus we had the world support at that time, all we needed was resolve.

---

Our elected leader didn't even have the resolve to stick with the original name Tommy Franks gave to the operation , i.e. Operation Infinite Justice. The moderate Muslims leaders advising W complained that only allah could dispense infinite justice so they changed it to Enduring Freedom instead. With the benefit of 18 years of hindsight it would have been more apt to name it Enduring Attrition.

---

Yes, it was remarkably timid and a good example of the pre-Trump wobbling despite a Pearl Harbor level of provocation. Forgot about the tactical nuke option -- it might have been the way to go --- its the message you need. Just don't really want to use the atomics again first if it can be avoided. But the re-naming of the Operation was a good example of where the "you are not in any position to quibble" posture was sorely lacking.

---

Titan, I agree with you 99% of the time so, don't take this the wrong way. I'd rather us use the atomics first than someone else who might (probably) doesn't care about the literal fallout as much as we have, do and will.

---