Jump to content

NewfoundlandFreeFrog

Members
  • Content Count

    21,286
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

NewfoundlandFreeFrog last won the day on May 3

NewfoundlandFreeFrog had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,430 Excellent

About NewfoundlandFreeFrog

  • Birthday 06/23/1951

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • TCU Class Year or School affiliation
    1980

Recent Profile Visitors

3,451 profile views
  1. Whoa Nellie...That nasty Tony Stark really went and corrupted sweet Pepper Potts! Gwyneth Paltrow's holiday gift guide includes a BDSM kit
  2. No rancor in the least. Also nothing more to say on the matter.
  3. Can't say that's any argument I made personally. Accurate summaries seem difficult for some. But if you like arguing with men of straw go for it.
  4. I can't say that was ever any argument I made, personally. But go for it. Accurate summaries seem difficult for some.
  5. If over 2 centuries of practice is "theater" or not "real" well I guess I have no quarrel.
  6. I say again...your interpretation of the Constitution is your own not the historical reality for centuries.
  7. I have some areas of agreement here. I also think Obama example was on the pretty far low end historically speaking.
  8. Where you are here is discussable unlike the blanket statements you made earlier. I don't know the evidence which led the govt to act but then you do not either I would think. Your derision may or may not be correct. Re. "started" yes Jefferson's actions in Tripoli marked the first in a now centuries long line of sending in a military force to kill off people and topple govts opposed to US--and often corporate interests--without benefit of a declaration of war. I'd certainly think buddy represented more of a threat than fruit workers in Guatemala, however.
  9. I would say that "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger" covers off your objection adequately. I totally agree that if buddy had been living in Rhode Island or some such, it would be wrong. There is all sorts of gray area here, true. And certainly the term "public danger" can and probably(/certainly?) has been at times abused. But the prohibition is not the blanket prohibition you want to make it. War is an acceptable reason to act. As is the existence of a public danger not able to be addressed by normal procedures. The Jefferson admin, for example, devoted fully 10% of the (very small) federal budget to various intel operations. He launched the Navy at the Barbary pirates without benefit of a declaration of war and without worrying excessively to the point of inaction about your fairly rigid interpretation of the above. The govt certainly considered them a public danger (or at least a danger to the merchant class and seamen). Had an American citizen been serving with them as mercenaries or, as is more likely, been serving as a slave they would have been killed. It is likely many were killed. The pirates did, after all, take around a million slaves from the high seas over the years and used many of them in their galleys. Jefferson. Was. Quite. Familiar. With. The. Constitution.
  10. I think Clinton 1) didn't commit a high crime in any sense of the word with his lies as his lies did not imperil national security. 2) I do think he committed a misdemeanor with his lies and should have been removed for that reason. There was a perfectly good VP available who could have filled in just fine. IMO Trump OTOH has committed high crimes that have imperiled national security and should be impeached and removed. Also numerous misdemeanors. Not so sure about the Veep or the party base, there could/should be another impeachment if they keep on doing the same things but there it is. Maybe they'd learn something from the experience. Or maybe not. If not, well the law says the Speaker should serve. I know of nothing in the Constitution which says a US citizen residing and acting from within another sovereign nation against the national interests of the USA is exempt from retaliatory actions by US military forces. Perhaps someone can point out the relevant clauses which show my specific ignorance here. Of course if they were residing and acting from within the jurisdiction of the Constitution that would be a different matter. That would definitely fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. Lastly, I agree a check or a balance which is never invoked is neither a check nor a balance.
  11. Off to TX today. BTW, anyone who has a chance should visit their local astro club or many museums to see a rare transit of Mercury across the Sun today.
×
×
  • Create New...