- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
therick711
| Favorite team: | Air Force  |
| Location: | South |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | Dominating in football |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 26115 |
| Registered on: | 1/2/2008 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted by therick711 on 1/16/26 at 3:37 pm to Indefatigable
Just as long as we are clear that you were completely wrong about both the state of the law and practice in this area since the founding. Your disagreement on how it may turn out is a long way away from your original thesis. I admire when someone can admit they were wrong. :cheers:
0
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted by therick711 on 1/16/26 at 3:27 pm to Indefatigable
And yet they are treated the same. Two things don't have to be the same to be treated the same. Congress can pass federal criminal law on wildlife export and authorize money for conflicts abroad. But but but those aren't the same thing! So what? The mechanism is the same.
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted by therick711 on 1/16/26 at 3:24 pm to Indefatigable
Sure it is. The Senate exercises advise and consent on nominations and the president can then unilaterally fire cabinet heads, recall ambassadors, fire us attorneys. It would actually fit much better in the framework for it to be as everyone since Washington assumed.
Also, the congress attempted to impose this condition in the 2024 ndaa, not as a ratification of NATO which occurred in 1949.
Also, the congress attempted to impose this condition in the 2024 ndaa, not as a ratification of NATO which occurred in 1949.
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted by therick711 on 1/16/26 at 3:21 pm to Indefatigable
All I ever said was it would be an interesting exercise, you responded that it was a decided issue, which it is not. I would imagine the supreme court would continue to abstain. Also, I'm not sure what you are saying scotus might hold.
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted by therick711 on 1/16/26 at 3:18 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And when Congress requires approval before withdrawal as a condition of its approval?
Why would they even have to do that if the president didn't have that power, though. QED.
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted by therick711 on 1/16/26 at 3:17 pm to Indefatigable
Congress purports to do things all the time that are beyond its power. Check out, for instance, the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act. Unconstitutional waiver of state sovereign immunity. Just one example.
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted by therick711 on 1/16/26 at 3:15 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
What would be the point of a requirement that the Senate approve of a treaty if POTUS can unilaterally withdraw from it?
Washington and Jefferson apparently disagree with you. The president must receive advice and consent to enter obligations to other countries, but can terminate obligations under his foreign affair article II powers.
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted by therick711 on 1/16/26 at 3:10 pm to Indefatigable
I prefer to think you were ignorant rather than dumb. Your call.
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted by therick711 on 1/16/26 at 3:08 pm to Indefatigable
No it won't. The supreme court abstained under its political question doctrine. Congress would have to impeach and convict that the senate is required to terminate. That's the landscape. Interesting that you would speak so definitively on the issue given you haven't really looked at it.
As to impeachment, would be very difficult to justify given Washington, Jefferson, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump twice have all done it unilaterally.
As to impeachment, would be very difficult to justify given Washington, Jefferson, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump twice have all done it unilaterally.
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted by therick711 on 1/16/26 at 3:04 pm to Indefatigable
The source is article II section 2, DOJ opinions, and the practical experience from president Washington to Trump of doing so.
See also Goldwater v. Carter where the supreme court abstained from the question.
See also Goldwater v. Carter where the supreme court abstained from the question.
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted by therick711 on 1/16/26 at 2:58 pm to Indefatigable
Making treaties. The president has always had the power to withdraw from them.
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted by therick711 on 1/16/26 at 2:54 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Besides, only an act of Congress or a 2/3rds Senate vote can withdraw us from NATO. That isn’t happening and President Trump cannot do it on his own.
Would be an interesting exercise. Article II power versus a law from Congress purporting to curtail that power. The conventional thinking for years is withdrawal is an exclusive Article II power.
re: That damn Pam Bondi has her stupid nose in everything I tell ya
Posted by therick711 on 1/13/26 at 6:46 pm to dgnx6
You don't really have a risk of not finding anything. You have a great case of felony murder on video. She should stand trial for it.
re: That damn Pam Bondi has her stupid nose in everything I tell ya
Posted by therick711 on 1/13/26 at 6:35 pm to FLTech
Hopefully they charge her with felony murder.
re: The Mullah have all but fallen now.
Posted by therick711 on 1/7/26 at 8:29 am to LuckyTiger
Trump said during the campaign in 2020 that if he won reelection Iran would fall very quickly. Looks like he may have been right.
re: Traitor Aldrich Ames Dead at 84
Posted by therick711 on 1/6/26 at 9:20 pm to IonaTiger
quote:
I really can't argue this, but I have to think that his life in that max security prison was a pretty shitty experience. I think he was allowed 1 hour outside per day. I think I'd rather be shot by a firing squad.
Given he was at an FCI and not a USP, he was in a medium security prison.
re: CBP Says Americans Have No Fourth Amendment At The Airport
Posted by therick711 on 12/16/25 at 3:49 pm to 4cubbies
That's been the case forever. Know how you have to submit to a search every time you fly? That's because the Supreme Court held you don't have fourth amendment rights at the airport. Because... Exigencies.
re: Read Derek Chauvin’s New Petition … And Weep For American Justice
Posted by therick711 on 12/9/25 at 11:37 am to BBONDS25
We used to ridicule the USSR's use of show trials. Pointed out the human right abuse of the practice. From about 2020-2024, our country put on quite a few of them. Very sad for the rule of law.
re: Bill & Hillary are refusing to appear before house oversight for depositions on Epstein
Posted by therick711 on 11/17/25 at 7:52 pm to theronswanson
Just toss Hillary into a van and bring her in. All she needs is one shoe.
re: Dick Cheney Died on 11/3. His Funeral is Scheduled For 11/20....
Posted by therick711 on 11/12/25 at 9:08 pm to KCT
His legacy is as follows:
Neocon legend
Ran a vp committee that selected him
Shot guy in face who then had to apologize to him
Became a liberal icon
Neocon legend
Ran a vp committee that selected him
Shot guy in face who then had to apologize to him
Became a liberal icon
re: Trump's Reason For Wanting The Filibuster Removed. Is He Right?
Posted by therick711 on 11/5/25 at 9:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When have they voted to remove the filibuster on legislation in those 30 years?
Democrats were the architects of using reconciliation to jam the ACA through. The express purpose was to avoid the filibuster. It's been done and we are all worse for it. To answer the question, 2010 when they changed the rules to do this.
Popular
8
