President Trump brings another US Hostage held in Russia home.

I still do not like him. I still do not think he is should be President (should and being duly elected and recognizing that are two different things). I think he is violating the Constitution most severely.

Yet, this was right and just. Good Job and welcome home Marc Fogel.

In addition, the folks who are upset that this release maybe to the determent of Ukraine the issues are these:

The voting US simply majority does not care about Ukraine more than US domestic issues and U.S. Citizens.

The matter was litigated at the polls and Trump won.

Folks are banking Putin does not attack a NATO ally. Time will tell. We often lament that Hitler and the Nazis could have been stopped dinner w much less pain. The flip side of that was had Hitler not gone as far as he had before global response the necessity to utter destroy the regime would not be present. Hitler knew the Allies would never negotiate w him. However, big hat Nazis and Generals were blinded that a negotiated peace against the Soviets was possible, achievable. No, and that is because of how far events had gone.


U.S. citizens are simply not worth Ukraine to most U.S. citizens. The day may come that sacrificing Ukraine may be what permits US deaths. That is too abstract and too far away to matter to the body politic.


I have detailed a “peace deal” I would support numerous times. If Trump can get that and Ukraine balks, then Ukraine can go alone.

That is as fair as I can be to both sides.

We need to celebrate the return of our fellow American. Ukraine is going to have its day and Fogel will not be what tips Ukrainian’s future.

quote:

I think he is violating the Constitution most severely.

please quote article and section you believe he's violating -- i am truly interested

THEN I'd LOVE you to point out where justices are actually violating the constitution by limiting the power of the Executive with the Executive branch -

(you might consider not posting from your phone, it's really not working out)

Appeasement to Putin that brought this.

Europe is up in arms about Trump making concessions to his second master, Putin.

After NitanHitler of course!

Who he has accepted his ethnic cleansing as normal!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Appeasement to Putin that brought this.

Europe is up in arms about Trump making concessions to his second master, Putin.

After NitanHitler of course!

Who he has accepted his ethnic cleansing as normal!

uhm, under who's watches did Russia invade Ukraine?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
[QUOTE]I think he is violating the Constitution most severely.

please quote article and section you believe he's violating -- i am truly interested

THEN I'd LOVE you to point out where justices are actually violating the constitution by limiting the power of the Executive with the Executive branch -

(you might consider not posting from your phone, it's really not working out)[/QUOTE
The 14th Amendment being voided, in part, by an Executive Order.

You need to read the Jackson concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).

The S. Ct., certainly does have the authority to review Executive action. Even Marbury v. Madison (1803) is addresses judicial review of executive action.

A president’s authority to issue an executive order typically comes, either explicitly or implicitly, from a congressional statute, but on occasion presidents have justified orders on the basis of their constitutional power to execute the nation’s laws. Whether the Constitution empowers the president only to execute policies devised by Congress or additionally vests the president with substantive policymaking powers has long been a matter of dispute. As a result, orders based on inherent presidential powers not authorized by Congress are more likely to raise separation-of-powers concerns. In these cases, courts must determine whether the president has exercised legislative power belonging only to Congress.

Courts may strike down executive orders not only on the grounds that the president lacked authority to issue them but also in cases where the order is found to be unconstitutional in substance. In some cases, it is not an executive order itself that is challenged in court, but instead a regulation promulgated pursuant to an order or the manner in which executive branch officials have interpreted an order. While many executive orders have been challenged on specific statutory and constitutional grounds, others have been subjected to “reasonableness review.” In the early twentieth century, the Supreme Court began to read the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to include a guarantee of “substantive due process.” This legal concept permitted courts to review both statutes and executive actions limiting the rights to life, liberty, or property to ensure that they were reasonable. Critics of reasonableness review, many of them progressive reformers, argued that the practice was antidemocratic because it substituted the judgment of courts for that of elected officials. Moreover, many believed that the courts applied reasonableness review too aggressively, in particular where economic regulation was concerned.

The Supreme Court struck down another of Lincoln’s wartime executive orders in Ex parte Milligan (1866). In 1863, Lincoln issued General Order No. 100, a code of conduct for the military during wartime. The order provided for trial by military commissions, rather than civilian courts, for civilians alleged to have aided the Confederacy. Lambdin Milligan, an alleged Confederate sympathizer in Indiana, was convicted by such a commission and sentenced to death. The Court held that Milligan’s trial violated several constitutional provisions—including the right to a jury trial in criminal cases—and that trials by military commission could not be held in states where the civilian courts were operating, as they had been in Indiana throughout the war. The Court’s opinion suggested that trials of civilians by military commissions might have been unconstitutional even in states under Confederate control but did not decide that issue. The Court distinguished Milligan in Ex parte Quirin (1942), upholding Roosevelt’s World War II order providing for trial by military tribunal for those accused of espionage or sabotage. Unlike in Milligan, the Court in Quirin found that the defendants had been properly classified as enemy combatants.

The Court deferred to Roosevelt again in its widely criticized decisions in Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) and Korematsu v. United States (1944). In Hirabayashi, the Court upheld a curfew order directed at Japanese Americans, while in Korematsu, the Court approved an order excluding Japanese Americans from certain areas on the West Coast, which displaced thousands of people, forcing them to move to relocation camps. Both military orders were promulgated under Roosevelt’s executive order authorizing these measures as a defense against espionage and sabotage in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack.

Those Japanese citizens cases have been expressly overturned and are not good law.

Federal courts have occasionally invalidated presidential orders on the basis that Congress overstepped its bounds by authorizing the president to make the order. The non-delegation doctrine holds that Congress, being vested by the Constitution with all legislative power, may not delegate that power to the other branches of government. In Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935), the Supreme Court struck down executive orders regulating the transport of petroleum that Roosevelt had issued pursuant to the National Industrial Recovery Act. Because the NIRA provided no standards or guidelines for the president to follow in deciding whether to allow or prohibit transport, the Court found Congress to have impermissibly delegated its legislative authority. A few months later, in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), the Court made a similar finding with respect to a code of competition for the poultry industry that Roosevelt had approved by executive order. As a result, the Court struck down the order as well as Title I of the NIRA, which authorized such industrial codes.

Thus, Executive Orders are subject to judicial review.

quote:

Appeasement to Putin that brought this.

Exactly. Trump has long been on his knees to Putin, and it was obvious from before the election that he would betray Ukraine (and thereby our NATO allies).

If I was Zelensky, I wouldn't budge from demanding that Russia leave Ukraine's territory.

Good news the guy is home.

I’ll take the S. Ct., precedent above and not your joker on Twitter. B

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

I think he is violating the Constitution most severely.

please quote article and section you believe he's violating -- i am truly interested

THEN I'd LOVE you to point out where justices are actually violating the constitution by limiting the power of the Executive with the Executive branch -

(you might consider not posting from your phone, it's really not working out)

The 14th Amendment being voided, in part, by an Executive Order.

You need to read the Jackson concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).

The S. Ct., certainly does have the authority to review Executive action. Even Marbury v. Madison (1803) is addresses judicial review of executive action.

A president’s authority to issue an executive order typically comes, either explicitly or implicitly, from a congressional statute, but on occasion presidents have justified orders on the basis of their constitutional power to execute the nation’s laws. Whether the Constitution empowers the president only to execute policies devised by Congress or additionally vests the president with substantive policymaking powers has long been a matter of dispute. As a result, orders based on inherent presidential powers not authorized by Congress are more likely to raise separation-of-powers concerns. In these cases, courts must determine whether the president has exercised legislative power belonging only to Congress.
....

Thus, Executive Orders are subject to judicial review.

Okay, so it's ONE EO that is (in my opinion also) in conflict with the 14th - i agree, it smells, and should have been handled like all other abridgements of rights, through the legislative branch

Though, as your quote provides an interesting PoV -- the authority claims that the power of an EO comes from "congressional statute" - okay, let's stipulate for the conversation that this is correct - When it's outside of the executive branch, i would even tend to agree - However, the President is also the executive (i recall reading the bylines about the name of the executive, being "well, any man can be a president (of a company)" --

When the Executive Branch, without a doubt, he is the Executive -- recall the first impeachment had the charge "obstruction of congress" when one branch interfered with the prerogatives of another - goose-gander -- If he wants to reduce headcount in the EB (tired of typing the whole thing) it's 100% within his scope - and, before some dolt gets on the "power of the purse" the SOP is that left over funds are returned to the treasury --


Do you have another example, as we both agree that birthright citizenship EO is HIGHLY questionable

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
President Trump brings another US Hostage held in Russia home.

I still do not like him. I still do not think he is should be President (should and being duly elected and recognizing that are two different things). I think he is violating the Constitution most severely.

Yet, this was right and just. Good Job and welcome home Marc Fogel.

In addition, the folks who are upset that this release maybe to the determent of Ukraine the issues are these:

The voting US simply majority does not care about Ukraine more than US domestic issues and U.S. Citizens.

The matter was litigated at the polls and Trump won.

Folks are banking Putin does not attack a NATO ally. Time will tell. We often lament that Hitler and the Nazis could have been stopped dinner w much less pain. The flip side of that was had Hitler not gone as far as he had before global response the necessity to utter destroy the regime would not be present. Hitler knew the Allies would never negotiate w him. However, big hat Nazis and Generals were blinded that a negotiated peace against the Soviets was possible, achievable. No, and that is because of how far events had gone.


U.S. citizens are simply not worth Ukraine to most U.S. citizens. The day may come that sacrificing Ukraine may be what permits US deaths. That is too abstract and too far away to matter to the body politic.


I have detailed a “peace deal” I would support numerous times. If Trump can get that and Ukraine balks, then Ukraine can go alone.

That is as fair as I can be to both sides.

We need to celebrate the return of our fellow American. Ukraine is going to have its day and Fogel will not be what tips Ukrainian’s future.

Glad he's home but you have to wonder why Putin is suddenly agreeable. He owns trump and the whole world knows it. Next step is for trump to sell out the Ukraine and let Putin have it.

quote:

it. Next step is for trump to sell out the Ukraine and let Putin have it.

Hegseth already has that underway.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Appeasement to Putin that brought this.

One unimportant mook (as far as we know).
Nothing like Viktor Bout.
Traded this pawn for what?

remind me again of all the wars with Ukraine russia started under GOP's watch?

quote:

uhm, under who's watches did Russia invade Ukraine?

All the s__t the world is in happened under Bidens watch, It's amazing to me that half of the voting public still thinks that things were just peachy under Biden and almost voted for the democrats again.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
remind me again of all the wars with Ukraine russia started under GOP's watch?

Russia does not do election timeline planning. Putin plans years out. This started w Georgia back in 2008.

Tell me how many GOP presidents have stopped Russia? Trump has not, and his appears negotiating away Ukraine territory.

George Bush II could not deal w Putin subduing Chechnya in the Second Chechnya War.
1999-2009.
That spans the End of Clinton, all of Bush II two terms, and a year of Obama’s first term after investiture.

Really all this started back in 94 with the First Chechnya War.

So no, Putin has no elections to work around. He does as he is ready. The Old Five Year plans are how they think.

We simply do not care enough and Russia no matter what is a nuclear power to get too involved.

At least the Biden Administration did try to draw a line in the sand and say enough.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
remind me again of all the wars with Ukraine russia started under GOP's watch?

Russia does not do election timeline planning. Putin plans years out. This started w Georgia back in 2008.

Tell me how many GOP presidents have stopped Russia? Trump has not, and his appears negotiating away Ukraine territory.

George Bush II could not deal w Putin subduing Chechnya in the Second Chechnya War.
1999-2009.
That spans the End of Clinton, all of Bush II two terms, and a year of Obama’s first term after investiture.

Really all this started back in 94 with the First Chechnya War.

So no, Putin has no elections to work around. He does as he is ready. The Old Five Year plans are how they think.

We simply do not care enough and Russia no matter what is a nuclear power to get too involved.

At least the Biden Administration did try to draw a line in the sand and say enough.

Let's DO be clear, the question was around ukraine -
2014 - Obama
2021 - Biden

just for an update, the "Second Chechnya War" started in 99 - hmm, who was president then? hmmm? You point to bush, he wasn't elected until a YEAR later

So... Second Chechnya War, 1999 - Clinton

Doesn't fit a narrative, but it is the truth