Even Trump cannot seriously believe Canada is going to join the U.S. a territory or state(s).

The tariff thing is not going to force Canada to request annexation. No one can believe that is remotely possible. If President Trump believes that he needs removed pursuant to the 25th Amendment. I cannot believe he does.

Only a war by force brings Canada into the de facto sovereignty of the U.S. President Trump cannot believe he is going to take US forces into military intervention with Canada. Surely, Congress would never go along. Surely the professional military would never acquiesce. If President Trump believes this, he needs impeached. I cannot believe he believes war, military force is a play.

Thus, I believe it is all bluster as a means of twisting the tariff knife. Oh, and Trump wants to destroy NATO from within. That I strongly believe.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Even Trump cannot seriously believe Canada is going to join the U.S. a territory or state(s).

The tariff thing is not going to force Canada to request annexation. No one can believe that is remotely possible. If President Trump believes that he needs removed pursuant to the 25th Amendment. I cannot believe he does.

Only a war by force brings Canada into the de facto sovereignty of the U.S. President Trump cannot believe he is going to take US forces into military intervention with Canada. Surely, Congress would never go along. Surely the professional military would never acquiesce. If President Trump believes this, he needs impeached. I cannot believe he believes war, military force is a play.

Thus, I believe it is all bluster as a means of twisting the tariff knife. Oh, and Trump wants to destroy NATO from within. That I strongly believe.

nato is destroyed and contrary to you i do think the congress wont be an issue for any invasion that trump and trumps will decide.

NATO is not destroyed. Weakens, yes it is.

There is no reason to believe Congress would declare war nor sanction military intervention in Canada.

NATO is neither weakened or destroyed --

but there's lots of bluster, hand wringing, and pearl clutching --

NOTHING has materially changed, the US is still footing the bill for NATO's security -- like it or not, it's the truth -

When a NATO ally like Canada is being treated the way it is, yes NATO is weakened.

When a NATO opponent like Russia is being treated better than member states, or receiving better coordination by an Administration, yes it is weakened.

I would take Biden in a heartbeat. However, Trump could be the best president, by my measure, in the history of our constitutional yay em. I will never embrace him due to Jan 6 and his post election behavior. He is the dusky elected President. So be it.

no, sir -- feelz are hurt, there is literally NO CHANGE to the treaty and commitment --

last time i checked, laws don't really care about feelz

That is why I used the word weakened.

Trump’s actions have made Russia’s hand stronger while his actions have aligned our NATO allies.

Again, nothing in NATI is conditioned on defense speeding. The status is weakened as NATI allies are no longer willing to share intel w us on Russia’s actions.

Sorry, this is the true state GOP led agenda has brought us.

The Czech’s had a treaty w France too.

There is no excuse for not having spell check on your devices

That being said, from generals to soldiers in NATO, they will do their job despite different politics and reason is, they are all brothers in sense and they will not leave each other behind

Oh dear I hit I instead of O.

What will I ever do. If I constrained myself to one to two sentence post, the matter would resolve.

Oh, IPhone does not have spell check. Spell Check does not suggest corrections to all capital words. How many times in this thread have I spelled NATO. The answer is more than five.

You can go straddle a Billie goat.

Unlike you, I knew NATO was our supreme law of the land. The Senate voted 82-13 to approve the treaty. President Trump cannot unilaterally ignore it, change it, or break it. He should be impeached if he tries.

But Trump and his compliant Republican Congress can rescind or revoke the NATO treaty.

He's already ordered U.S. forces not to participate in exercises in Europe next year, and is threatening to withdraw 35,000 troops from Germany.

Like I said, he has weakened NATO and strengthened Russia and China’s aggression is being emboldened.

Treaty termination is kind of an open question.

The first treaty terminated were 4 treaties in 1798 whereupon Congress passed legislation terminate 4 treaties w France. President Adams wanted this legislation and signed the legislation into law. Some commentators opine this was Congress exercising war powers instead of treaty role because the legislation authorized some limited military action against France.


Then in 1899, President McKinley sought unilateral termination certain articles of a treaty that was a commercial treaty w Switzerland. During the Franklin Roosevelt Administration and World War II, unilateral presidential termination increased markedly.15 Although Congress at times enacted legislation authorizing or instructing the President to terminate treaties during the twentieth century, unilateral presidential termination became the norm.

Scholars and Members of Congress (Sen. Goldwater) have challenged the President’s assertion of unilateral authority to terminate treaties under the rationale that treaty termination is analogous to the termination of federal statutes. Barry M. Goldwater, Treaty Termination is a Shared Power, 65 A.B.A. J. 198, 199–200 (1979). David Alder made this argument that treaties, were most similar to domestic statutes, and treaties required the same process to terminate as a federal statute. David Gray Adler, The Constitution and the Termination of Treaties 89–110 (1986).


Goldwater v Carter is the main federal court challenge to a president’s unilateral power to terminate treaties. Sen, Goldwater sued to prevent President Carter who had unilateral terminated a mutual defense pact w Taiwan. A divided Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the litigation should be dismissed, but it did so without reaching the merits of the constitutional question and with no majority opinion. Goldwater, 444 U.S. at 996 (vacating with instructions to dismiss with no majority opinion). The Fed Cir. Ct., agreed w Sen. Goldwater.

Citing a lack of clear guidance in the Constitution’s text and a reluctance to settle a dispute between coequal branches of our Government each of which has resources available to protect and assert its interests[,] four Justices concluded that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question. Id.

Justice William Rehnquist wrote this 4 justice opinion. This nonjisticable question opinion/doctrine of Justice Rehnquist has become the predominant form of application by the federal courts post Goldwater v. Carter. Specifically, this doctrine was invoked by federal courts to dismiss challenges to unilateral treaty termination by President Regan and President Bush. See Beacon Prods. Corp. v. Reagan, 633 F. Supp. 1191, 1198–99 (D. Mass. 1986), aff’d on other grounds, 814 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987); and See Kucinich v. Bush, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1, 14–17 (D.D.C. 2002).

Yet, whether constitutional disputes over treaty termination are resolved in federal courts or through the political process, the power of treaty termination may depend on the specific features of the treaty at issue. see Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. at 1003 ([D]ifferent termination procedures may be appropriate for different treaties.), Curtis Bradley, International Law in the U.S. Legal System 71 (2d ed. 2015) [hereinafter Bradley, U.S. Legal System] (It is possible that the President has the authority to terminate treaties in some situations but not others.).

Finally, when Congress has passed legislation implementing a treaty into domestic law of the United States, the President likely lacks the authority to terminate the domestic effect of that legislation without going through the full legislative process for repeal of the statute. 35See Julian Ku & John Yoo, Bond, The Treaty Power, and the Overlooked Value of Non-Self-Executing Treaties, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1607, 1628 (2015).

Thus, in asking who can terminate an approved treaty, the best answer is that the federal courts have adopted a concurrence opinion that the question of termination presents a non jurisdictional question that the federal courts are not permitted to answer. However, historically termination required the approval of Congress. That many legal scholars looking at Goldwater v Carter and historical understanding are taking a moderate ground that termination may be permitted by unilateral action of the President depending on either the type of treaty or whether Congress has passed legislation to bolster the treaty.

Ultimately, Congress possesses the power to breach and abrogate a treaty by passing later-in-time legislation that conflicts with U.S. treaty obligations. This is regardless of what the President may be able to do unilaterally. see La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 423, 460 (1899). (It has been adjudged that Congress by legislation, and so far as the people and authorities of the United States are concerned, could abrogate a treaty made between this country and another country which had been negotiated by the President and approved by the Senate.). ArtII.S2.C2.1.7 Legal Effect of Treaties on Prior Acts of Congress (discussing the last-in-time rule).

Folks, that is about all I know on treaties and provides basic holdings from the major treaty cases found in con jaw books across the U.S. law schools.

Again, as of today, the Federal Courts have not failed to apply a 4 justice opinion holding unilateral termination of an approved treaty by a president presents a nonjurisdictional question that the federal courts cannot resolve, adjudicate, or answer. Historically, unilateral termination was not the practice of the early Federal government. Legal and historical scholars dispute the legitimacy of unilateral termination by the president resolving around the type of treaty or whether Congress has enacted federal statutes to bolster the approved treaty.

No one disputes that Congress may abrogate a treaty regardless of whether a president can unilaterally terminate a treaty.

Ite missa est.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
He's already ordered U.S. forces not to participate in exercises in Europe next year, and is threatening to withdraw 35,000 troops from Germany.

What are the costs involved in maintaining 35,000 American troops in Germany when the Germans can increase their own numbers to cover/substitute those American boots ... at its own expense?

The Germans wanted us out of Germany well before Putin’s military adventures. It might make more sense to base our troops in Poland, but Germany makes more sense for prepositioned equipment.

Trump is trying to get others to do what he wants by the stick… but the carrot was tried before and wasn’t working too well.

Trump is trying to end the war in Ukraine at all costs. Very dove-like democrat behavior historically.

What boggles me is that somehow we have become so partisan that the Republican hawks all are falling in line with Trump and the democrat doves are all thumping the militarism drum against him.

A few more shifts like this and the Dems will be the Conservative Party, and the GOP will become the liberal one… kind of like it was from 1860-1930.

quote:

Trump is trying to end the war in Ukraine at all costs.

No. He’s trying to end the war in Ukraine at Ukraines cost, and to ensure Putin’s saves face with the Russian people. Putin has managed to kill a million or so of them in this misadventure after all. He has to show a return on that human investment.