R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Lost me. I have no idea what you’re talking about now.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
In fairness all Presidents since the inception of the Federal Reserve and who have made appointments have seemingly violated the oath. I would have included the Income Tax Act except technically an Amendment makes it not unconstitutional.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
Not with American involvement aiding the Saudi led coalition. No.
How the U.S. Became More Involved in the War in Yemen (Published 2016)
The United States has become more directly involved in Yemen’s civil war.
www.nytimes.com
From the UN link:
We gave the Saudi led coalition intelligence, maybe even helped them fuel their war planes. Things like that besides selling them weapons.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
No but that is the duty of the SCOTUS, to interpret the Constitution.
For all I know, the US’s action may have been warranted or it could be argued as warranted because Iraq was not complying with allowing nuclear inspectors in. I think that’s the crux of the matter.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Operation Desert Fox btw, already in place, probably did the job where we did not have to go in there. Operation Desert Fox could be called military intervention as well.
Last edited:
R
RuthAnne
Guest
It is the duty of every citizen.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Actually as I just added on, even before the Iraq invasion, we were already involved in Iraq in Operation Desert Fox, so one could say those were actions constituting a war crime. Operation Desert Fox actually kept Saddam at bay. It’s probably unfortunate, we just didn’t stick with that instead of a full invasion. Now, we are talking about some pretty deep stuff.
Right or wrong, the US’s position could have been that Iraq was not allowing nuclear inspectors in, so military action was done to enforce UN law. I’m not saying that is correct but they might have argued the invasion was legit because of this.
Plus, Bush might have argued that there was a plot to kill his father. I don’t find that, that credible either (at least, as a cause for the invasion) but that is part of the discussion.
Right or wrong, the US’s position could have been that Iraq was not allowing nuclear inspectors in, so military action was done to enforce UN law. I’m not saying that is correct but they might have argued the invasion was legit because of this.
Plus, Bush might have argued that there was a plot to kill his father. I don’t find that, that credible either (at least, as a cause for the invasion) but that is part of the discussion.
Last edited:
R
RuthAnne
Guest
Well, just consider a few of the things that Lincoln did.
He declared war against a foreign country (The Confederate States of America) without an authorization of congress.
He suspended habeas corpus.
He jailed newspaper editors who disagreed with his unlawful war and had their presses shut down.
He jailed ministers who refused to pray for his support.
He attempted to jail Judge Taney for his opinion that Lincoln violated the Constitution with regard to habeas corpus.
He ordered the polling booths to be manned with troops to prevent democrats from voting.
He imposed an illegal currency.
He conscripted soldiers.
He violated the state’s rights of secession.
Just to name a few . . .
V
Victoria33
Guest
Anyway, back to Trump, we have had this Iraq/Syria (and no, no war was ever declared on Syria, let alone US involvement there) but he’s been great on this issue there as well as North Korea who are no longer firing off missiles willy-nilly, it’s no perfect but it is something.
R
RuthAnne
Guest
Well, do Catholics believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and should be followed? Or just where its convenient to do so?
V
Victoria33
Guest
I can not speak for other Catholics but as for myself, Yes, I believe the Constitution should be followed.
I don’t think the Supreme Court always makes the correct decisions either, however, by law, they interpret the Constitution it seems to me as well. Now, in the past several decades, I have heard they are very overreaching while in the past, they were suppose to do their job on a pretty simple basis.
Then, we have the Dredd Scott decision. I disagree with that decision but I suppose it was the law of the land. If one doesn’t like it, try to change the law.
There’s a whole Civil War history forum on the web I have read before. I’m not going to really get into the CW here but if anyone cares to discuss it, fine.
I don’t think the Supreme Court always makes the correct decisions either, however, by law, they interpret the Constitution it seems to me as well. Now, in the past several decades, I have heard they are very overreaching while in the past, they were suppose to do their job on a pretty simple basis.
Then, we have the Dredd Scott decision. I disagree with that decision but I suppose it was the law of the land. If one doesn’t like it, try to change the law.
There’s a whole Civil War history forum on the web I have read before. I’m not going to really get into the CW here but if anyone cares to discuss it, fine.
R
RuthAnne
Guest
That is not an exclusive responsibility of the Supreme Court. The president and Congress take oaths to defend the Constitution. Their actions plainly show how they interpret the Constitution. If a bill is unconstitutional, they must oppose it. If they vote in favor of a bill, they have interpreted the Constitution as being consistent with its intent. The same goes for the president. And it trickles down to you and me as well.
S
sallybutler
Guest
As my mother and used to say when I would step off the curb because pedestrians have the right of way, you are just as dead even if you are in the right.
If I interpret the Constitution to mean I can say whatever I want to and the result is that a riot ensues, I will still be in jail in spite of my interpretation.
If I interpret the Constitution to mean I can say whatever I want to and the result is that a riot ensues, I will still be in jail in spite of my interpretation.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There are those whose job it is to assess what things are worth. Sometimes that’s in real estate, sometimes in other things. Sometimes it’s very difficult to understand and appreciate values. Supposedly real estate appraisers can accurate appraise real estate, but they really don’t. They’re subject to the information provided to them largely by realtors. There is a “value creep” that can be up or down, based on that fact. Sometimes it’s not easy to know what a thing is worth unless your skill and knowledge level is extremely high.
At a point in my life I was asked by lawyers on both sides of a litigation to assess the value of a cattle herd. Well, these were registered animals which, if one researched it, some had extremely high values, depending on certain market factors. Some didn’t and would bring only what they would bring at an auction sale to ranchers or at the stockyards. In the course of it, I discovered that the owner had some exotic animals that had an extremely high value, but only to people who were into exotic animals. That proved very difficult.
Once I was asked to appraise some real property. It was high-value property on its own. But then I learned that the owner of a professional football team was a “silent” owner along with the putative owner. The gave it more value because that person had the wherewithal to massively increase the utility of the property. His name alone, if disclosed, would enhance the value significantly.
I realize people like to claim Trump overstates his net worth, but I would have to see that said by someone a great deal more talented and experienced than what I have seen so far, to believe it.
Quite possibly Trump could see value where others could not, particularly in a recessionary cycle. I think I would believe him before I would believe some professional appraiser.
At a point in my life I was asked by lawyers on both sides of a litigation to assess the value of a cattle herd. Well, these were registered animals which, if one researched it, some had extremely high values, depending on certain market factors. Some didn’t and would bring only what they would bring at an auction sale to ranchers or at the stockyards. In the course of it, I discovered that the owner had some exotic animals that had an extremely high value, but only to people who were into exotic animals. That proved very difficult.
Once I was asked to appraise some real property. It was high-value property on its own. But then I learned that the owner of a professional football team was a “silent” owner along with the putative owner. The gave it more value because that person had the wherewithal to massively increase the utility of the property. His name alone, if disclosed, would enhance the value significantly.
I realize people like to claim Trump overstates his net worth, but I would have to see that said by someone a great deal more talented and experienced than what I have seen so far, to believe it.
Quite possibly Trump could see value where others could not, particularly in a recessionary cycle. I think I would believe him before I would believe some professional appraiser.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
Considering he’s banked quite a lot of political capital based on the fact that he’s a wizard businessman who was going to bring that acumen to the White House to cut better deals, the pretty strong evidence now that he in fact reported business losses of over a billion dollars in a ten year period, it suggests that his business skills were, well, significantly overstated.
At the same time, i frankly find the general notion that any politician’s worth is determined by his or her tax filings disturbing. I understand why the semi-precedent was established in the wake of Watergate, but if that’s the measure by which a Presidential candidate is vetted, or that somehow a tax return would ever reveal the extent to which anyone is successful or unsuccessful, would strike me as antithetical to a political system where all men are supposed to be equal.
This really at this point is more about humiliating Trump. If his tax returns revealed any malfeasance, I would imagine Mueller would have dug it up. Business incompetence isn’t a crime.
N
niceatheist
Guest
They just fired off some missiles willy nilly. While I think Trump did the right thing in trying to find some accommodation with Pyongyang, I had no more confidence in that regimes desire to abide by any kind of deal, implied or written, now, then it had when Albright went their in the 1990s. It’s an unreliable regime, opaque to the extreme.
G
gracepoole
Guest
This thread has taken a weird turn.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I doubt Trump has much of a clue what’s happening with his taxes. He pays a bunch of lawyers and accountants to deal with it so he doesn’t have to. If there was a problem, the same team of lawyers and accountants would be tasked with cleaning it up. Every rich guy out there does the same.
V
Victoria33
Guest
The South and North leaders meet, I think there is a scheduled meeting with Japan’s leader and Kim as well as the possibility of some integration between North and South. Things are moving. Yes, we have to be pragmatic and say we probably won’t have total denuclearization but a great cooling of tensions may still work out.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
I believe Trump actually said as much back in the eighties.If ever he thought we were in a place in this Country where he could step in and make a difference,he would run for president.2016 was that time
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Indeed it was. And he sure made a difference.
Last edited:
- Status