State Department 'troubled' by Moscow's move against Soros groups

  • Thread starter Thread starter b_ulmen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HCTC said:
As you probably know, one of the foundations designated “undesirable” is the National Endowment for Democracy which s funded primarily through an annual allocation from the U.S. Congress in the form of a grant awarded through the United States Information Agency (USIA).
Click to expand...
Your point? Do you think it is a “good” agency that tries to subvert Russia? Do you really think they are concerned with democracy?

If the US is really concerned with “democracy” why is it giving support and diplomatic clout to al-Sisi and Saudi Arabia?

I still think Putin’s agenda is better than the US. He is trying to exorcise terrorism from Syria and the evil spirit of the Euromaidan from Ukraine.
 
Latias said:
Your point? Do you think it is a “good” agency that tries to subvert Russia? Do you really think they are concerned with democracy?

If the US is really concerned with “democracy” why is it giving support and diplomatic clout to al-Sisi and Saudi Arabia?

I still think Putin’s agenda is better than the US. He is trying to exorcise terrorism from Syria and the evil spirit of the Euromaidan from Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Sigh… My point doesn’t have anything to do with Russia or the huge crush you have on Putin. My point has to do with foreign affairs power and the U.S. government. As stated in the most recent previous post:

"In addition to these explicit provisions, there are also certain powers that flow merely from the fact that the United States is a sovereign nation. Justice Sut herland, writing in United States v._ C,drtiss-Wright E2Mort Corp., 29 U.S. 304, in 1937, observed that "The investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution."

"This claim actually has much more ancient roots, going back for its clearest exposition to a famous debate between Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in 1793. England and France had gone to war in that year, and President George Washington had announced the United States, neutrality. At once, the Proclamation was challenged, in that nowhere in the Constitution is the President given the explicit authority to proclaim neutrality

2
"As you might suspect, Alexander Hamilton was first to the rescue. In a series of articles, he developed the theory that the executive power, vested in the President under Article II, inherently included the full panoply of rights in foreign affairs on behalf of the American colonists by the British Crown. Contrast this view with H a milton’s earlier position, taken in Federalist 69, that the authority of Commander-in-Chief devolved upon the President substantially less power than-was enjoyed by the-British Monarch. - one reconciliation might be that additional powers with regard to t he Army and Navy are explicitly given to Congress; whereas the explicit grants of authority to Congress in foreign affairs deal only with treaties and the law of nations.

"James Madison responded that the Congress more rightfully inherited these powers. Mos t important for our purposes, both men conceded that there were indeed powers inherent in the idea of sovereignty that were not spelled out in the Constitution. The only disagreement was which branch could exercise them, the President or Congress."

heritage.org/research/lec…-affairs-power

And now my point is that through the National Endowment for Democracy U.S. foreign affairs power was being exercised by Congress. And in case it is not perfectly obvious, I do support the U.S. Congress in the exercise of foreign affairs powers regarding open society in other countries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top