Trump's Tax Returns

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChuckB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RuthAnne said:
Exactly my point.

Per the Constitution, only congress has the power to declare war. Not the president. Any president who authorized military force absent of a congressional declaration of war is guilty of war crime.

When you have a president who can decide when and where to send troops without a congressional declaration of war, you don’t have a president, you have a dictator.

Yes, I’m a Catholic. All those things you mentioned are evil, of course, but all the more reason the congress should step up and declare war.

Do Catholics believe in honoring the laws of the land?
Click to expand...
Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq.

en.wikipedia.org

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Biden and Clinton and many others voted for it.
 
Yep. And it wasn’t a declaration of war. It was a spineless way of congress dodging their duty.
 
Last edited:
RuthAnne said:
P
Click to expand...
Bush did have the approval of congress. But granted, he did not have a formal declaration of war. It was not put to them in that way. That has been a source of contention ever since Korea. There has not been a formal declaration of war since WWII despite all the wars thereafter, and many think it’s improper simply to conduct a war upon a congressional “approval”. I’m not sure what the answer is.

Obama, on the other hand, had no approval of any kind for the attack on Libya. Congress wasn’t even told about it in advance. That really is going a step farther.
 
Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress, not the President.
 
RuthAnne said:
Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress, not the President.
Click to expand...
Then it needs to be taken to Court. I’m not aware of such being done… and at least, as far as I’m concerned, I’m not able to make such a decision as to legality.
 
RuthAnne said:
And I’m still waiting for a good reason to vote.
Click to expand...
Remember that in voting we’re selecting men and women to do a job. We are not voting for saints to lead the choirs in Heaven. I wouldn’t want Trump as my friend or neighbor, but I like what he’s doing as president.
 
Theo520 said:
No it’s everything,
Click to expand...
Sorry. It is not everything. Not everything is work related, not everything is on a government platform, not everything is on a platform that has government information. Given the qualifications and the logical complements, it is clear that not every communication that a person in government connected position has id FOIA’able.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Obama, on the other hand, had no approval of any kind for the attack on Libya. Congress wasn’t even told about it in advance. That really is going a step farther.
Click to expand...
We give a lot of aid, direct and indirectly to the conflict in Yemen, we give to the Saudi side. That conflict clearly began during the Obama administration too. We provided intelligence definitely.

It’s a whole 'nother issue to debate as to whether we need to be there.
The correct steps to combat ISIS were started under Obama, I’ll be honest about that. But Trump probably gave the military more leeway and did things differently on some things.

So, as far as I’m concerned, my vote was well worth it because the slaughter of Christians, Yezidis, Kurds, Shiites, other groups was severely curtailed because of the new president. I’m a part of that, if one didn’t vote for that, they are not.

Enough said, we need to be cautious, alert, prayerful, that we don’t step into some big mess again soon and Yemen or trouble with Iran could be that. We must try to choose the best and right decisions.
 
Last edited:
MikeInVA said:
Remember that in voting we’re selecting men and women to do a job. We are not voting for saints to lead the choirs in Heaven. I wouldn’t want Trump as my friend or neighbor, but I like what he’s doing as president.
Click to expand...
I don’t ask for a saint, only someone who honors the oath of office. But that bar seems to be a little too high for most candidates.
 
From Wikipedia:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

What has he done to violate this oath?
 
Gosh, too many to list. For one, he signed a bill to fund the government that had all kinds of unconstitutional expenditures in it. If he honored his oath, he would have vetoed the bill.
 
RuthAnne, give us particulars please. This is beginning to remind me of those cultists around here who insist that the courts have no jurisdiction over them because lawyers sometimes put “Esquire” behind their names and all judges are lawyers. They’re disqualified to be judges because they have accepted a title of royalty, forbidden by the constitution. Of course, “Esquire” isn’t a designation of royalty. It’s the highest yeoman classification, sort of like “Sergeant Major” in the army, which is not an officer’s rank. In Britain, lawyers had to have at least that designation in order to be able to question a member of the nobility in court.

But the cultists don’t know that.

And no offense intended. I think you’re a fine lady, but you’re not giving us particulars.
 
Last edited:
I would say that 80 percent (in round numbers) of the federal government is unconstitutional. Do you want to know what the federal government has the power to do? Just read the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. What is not specifically delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states, or to the people, (10th amendment). How could I even begin to specify all that is wrong with the over reaching of the federal government? Look at a lot of the issues, like education and welfare for instance. Not within the powers of the federal government.
 
Victoria33 said:
Then, maybe tell the SCOTUS we don’t need them anymore.
Click to expand...
We can’t safeguard the Constitution if we don’t know what it says and what those who are duty bound to follow it are doing about it. Do you just accept the decisions of the USSC as gospel?
 
You know, I’m inclined to defer to your analysis of this. I think most people probably realize the federal government has significantly overstepped its bounds, but nobody quite knows what to do about it. I remember reading somewhere that everything changed with a case somewhere called the “Schechter Poultry case”. I think the Supreme Court had ruled that the feds had no jurisdiction over poultry inspection or pricing or something. Then FDR threatened to pack the court, and they yielded and said the feds do have the power to regulate it. I think then a cascade of federal overreaching followed, which has never stopped.
 
Very true, but in my opinion, Lincoln was the first to basically dismantle and destroy the Constitution. Of all the presidents I think he was the worst in that respect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top