dagblog - Comments for "Conservatives Claim The GOP 47 Aren't Traitors Because They Didn't Send The Treason Letter By Mail"

Thank you, RM.

Wattree — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 07:49:43 +0000

In reply to Republicans invited a foreign

Thank you, RM.
.
It amazes me how conservative are blind to everything but what they want to see. They can't see that the Republican 47 committed a blatant act of treason, but they're outraged over an Obama executive order, calling it an "Unprecedented Power Grab."
.

Like · · Share

It is clear, you didn't read

Resistance — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 02:25:42 +0000

In reply to Resistance,

It is clear, you didn't read the article.

What other cases, have relied upon the Findings of the Curtis case?

I did prove your reliance on

Resistance — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 02:23:05 +0000

In reply to Resistance,

I did prove your reliance on Curtis is flawed reasoning.

So let me guess, now you'll accuse me of inciting disruption or being a Troll and the next thing you know I'll be censored?

I prefer the introduction;

Resistance — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 02:19:28 +0000

In reply to The essay you link to is

I prefer the introduction; leading to a well thought out discourse, of how Marshall's words were misrepresented, allowing some with an ideological bias to usurp power from the people

In light of the fact this President is a lame duck and the Congress, especially the Senate, has no confidence in this President to faithfully execute the will of the people.

The direction this President was leading the Nation was soundly rejected by the voters 113th United States Congress.

The Curtis case allows an aberration and injustice to occur against those wanting this President, along with his party to be removed from power, so they can longer do more harm by leading the nation in the wrong direction.

Allowing a lame duck to continue a destructive agenda is not what the forefathers intended.

The people have spoken and this Presidents surrogates don't care to listen.

Did this president seek advise and consent to what the Newly elected leadership desires in treaty negotiations; or is it another shove it move, by sore losers?

Introduction

The executive branch relies in part on the “sole organ” doctrine to define presidential power broadly in foreign relations and national security, including assertions of an inherent executive power that is not subject to legislative or judicial constraints. The doctrine draws from a statement by John Marshall as a member of the House of Representatives in 1800: “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.” In dicta, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936), cited Marshall’s speech to support an independent, extra-constitutional, or exclusive power of the president.

When read in context, however, Marshall made no such claim.

However, when Marshall’s speech is read in context, he did not advocate an independent, inherent presidential power over external affairs,,,,,,the Framers rejected the model of an executive empowered to exercise exclusive control over external relations

did not include a form of inherent power incapable of being checked by other branches of government.

the case itself did not concern independent presidential power

144

Given Roosevelt’s stated dependence on statutory authority and the lack of anything in the briefs about inherent presidential power, there was no need for the Supreme Court to explore the existence of independent sources of executive authority. Nevertheless, in extensive dicta, the decision by Justice George Sutherland went far beyond the specific issue before the Court and discussed extraconstitutional powers of the president.

This is an example of overreach by the court, contrary to the intent of the Framers.

Allowed to become law, because their was no vigorous debate over other issues, other than the limited issues brought before the court in the Curtis case.

The courts can not rule on issues not presented or contended.

No one of the expert litigants was prepared to defend against Sutherlands bias and attempt to interfere with the Legislative Branches oversight.

Resistance,

Wattree — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 01:56:09 +0000

In reply to If we allow the Curtis case

Resistance,
.
Do you really think I'm so dumb that I don't recognize blatant obfuscation when I see it? The PRESIDENT of the United States has SOLE power to negotiate with foreign powers - PERIOD! And the treasonous Republican 47 tried to usurp that presidential prerogative - PERIOD That is the issue. Stick to it. I'm use to dealing with conservatives, so I'm not going to allow you to try to contort either the facts, or truth, into a configuration that suits your point of view. If you say that the Republican 47 had a right to interfere with ongoing presidential negotiations, prove it. The burden of proof is on you.
.
And by the way, process of legislative checks and balances begins AFTER the negotiations. Follow your position would lead to chaos. There are always a group of people in this country who disagree with anything the president does. So your reference to "THE PEOPLE," is MEANINGLESS, because you're just referring to the people that YOU agree with. That's not how this country works. This is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, and the people elected the President to speak for them, not legislators. Legislators legislate and ratify, or not ratify. They are not executives that was elected by ALL of the people, and charged with the responsibility of running the country, and those 47 idiots should have known that.

The essay you link to is

moat — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 01:21:21 +0000

In reply to PRESIDENTIAL INHERENT POWER |

The essay you link to is interesting. The conclusion the author reaches does not argue for what you argue for. Perhaps you could present an argument with his conclusions.

If we allow the Curtis case

Resistance — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 00:12:25 +0000

In reply to Constitutional authority for

If we allow the Curtis case to prevail, it will lead to the People who granted power to the legislative branch having no power to protect themselves with procedures for checks and balances.

Case law

The origins of the nondelegation doctrine, as interpreted in U.S., can be traced back to, at least, 1690, when John Locke wrote:

The Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to others. . . . And when the people have said, We will submit to rules, and be govern'd by Laws made by such Men, and in such Forms, no Body else can say other Men shall make Laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any Laws but such as are Enacted by those, whom they have Chosen, and Authorised to make Laws for them. The power of the Legislative being derived from the People by a positive voluntary Grant and Institution, can be no other, than what the positive Grant conveyed, which being only to make Laws, and not to make Legislators, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their Authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.[3]

The people are losing more control of self determination, case by case.

The scoundrels will twist the laws and eventually the laws will be skewed against the people. and against their interests.

BTW

Something to consider

Is Fast Track Authority given to the President, by the legislative branch, a power not authorized or granted by the People?

Can you cite case law where

rmrd0000 — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 20:09:36 +0000

In reply to No one is stopping the

Can you cite case law where the appellate court justice's opinion was upheld by a higher court? Since no Iran treaty exists, what criteria is being used to criticize a nonexistent document?

PRESIDENTIAL INHERENT POWER |

Resistance — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 20:01:47 +0000

In reply to Constitutional authority for

PRESIDENTIAL INHERENT POWER | 143

The Curtiss-Wright Case

[PDF]The Law: Presidential Inherent Power: The “Sole Organ ...

In 1981, a federal appellate court cautioned against placing undue reliance on “certain dicta” in Justice Sutherland’s opinion: “To the extent that denominating the President as the ‘sole organ’ of the United States in international affairs constitutes a blanket endorsement of plenary Presidential power over any matter extending beyond the borders of this country, we reject that characterization.” 33

the Court itself has not denied to Congress its constitutional authority to enter the field ..

Before you make any more absurd claims of treason, I suggest you read what Legal scholars and the courts say about the Curtis-Wright case

No one is stopping the

Resistance — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 19:59:46 +0000

In reply to Constitutional authority for