Four ways Trump is trying to be king.

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:

He wouldn't even be a good President of his own fan club.

No, he would be a great president. Like he is now.

Everyone read this again.

This is actually funny.

Article II. Section 3: he can take care that the laws be faithfully executed without obeying a court decision. A court decision is not a law.

The words that you're quoting here do not very specifically say that the courts have dominion over the executive branch.

The Constitution creates three equal branches of government which generally have no power over each other. The president cannot order a court to do anything. Can the court find that Congress must pass a law?

Additionally, can a small town local judge order the president not to send his troops into a particular battle if someone sues him to counter his military decisions?

If a judge ordered a president not to defend the country against an imminent attack, would he have to go through the lengthy appeals process?

Could a court order that a declaration of War by Congress was unconstitutional and void?

President Trump’s Top 10 Achievements So Far…

10. He has secured the release of 19 people, including 16 Americans, from foreign captivity. When Pastor Andrew Brunson was freed by Turkey, he became the 19th captive released thanks to Donald Trump. Others include: four held by North Korea; an aid worker and her husband held by Egypt; three UCLA basketball players and a Texas businesswoman held by China; a couple and their three children held by the Taliban; a former CIA officer held by Portugal; and two citizens held by Venezuela. That’s more Americans freed in two years than President Barack Obama got released in eight. And unlike Obama, Trump did it without releasing terrorist leaders or sending planeloads of cash to rogue regimes, creating an incentive for more hostage taking.

9. He delivered for the “forgotten Americans.” The Trump boom is benefiting those left behind by the Obama economy. Manufacturing jobs grew at the fastest rate in 23 years and the unemployment rate for Americans without a high school diploma reached the lowest point ever recorded. The Wall Street Journal reports that wages rose 3.1 percent — the biggest jump since 2009 — and that “low-skilled workers are among the biggest beneficiaries.”

8. He worked with Democrats and Republicans to pass important legislation. It didn’t get a lot of attention, but Trump got a lot done on a bipartisan basis, including criminal justice reform, opioid and sex trafficking legislation, and a new “Right to Try” law giving dying Americans access to experimental medications.

7. He has ushered in a golden age for women in the CIA. Trump not only appointed Gina Haspel as the agency’s first female director but also made Elizabeth Kimber the first women to lead the agency’s clandestine service — rewarding the CIA’s “band of sisters” who have toiled to keep the country safe since 9/11.

6. His push to expand domestic energy production bore fruit. This year the United States passed both Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world’s top oil producer.

5. In the six months after the Singapore summit with North Korea, he has made no concessions to Pyongyang. North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un expected to blow up some useless nuclear facilities in exchange for billions in hard currency. Trump has refused to play Kim’s game. Not only has Trump not lifted sanctions, unfrozen North Korean assets, ended the Korean War or offered Pyongyang diplomatic recognition, but also he imposed new sanctions on members of Kim’s inner circle.

4. He struck Syria again and eliminated the last vestiges of the Islamic State’s physical caliphate. For a second time, he enforced Obama’s red line against the use of chemical weapons. In December, U.S.-backed fighters captured Hajin, the last pocket of territory held by the Islamic State. The militant group is far from defeated, but Trump is right that we have knocked “the hell out of ISIS.”

3. He’s continued his tough line with Moscow. Trump announced America’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, shipped Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, canceled a meeting with Putin at the Group of 20 summit over Russia’s seizure of Ukrainian navy ships, expelled dozens of Russian diplomats and imposed more sanctions against Moscow.

2. He pulled out of Obama’s disastrous Iran deal and reimposed crippling sanctions on Tehran. The new sanctions have taken millions of barrels of Iranian oil off the market and led to the cancellation of major deals with European investors. And when Iranian protesters rose up to challenge the regime, Donald Trump (unlike his predecessor) stood with them.

1. He stood by Brett Kavanaugh and even in the worst moments never wavered. Trump has confirmed a record 85 judges in his first two years as president. That total includes two Supreme Court justices, 30 appellate court judges and 53 district judges who will preside for decades. Trump’s successful fight for Kavanaugh also helped him expand his Senate majority, as energized Republican voters threw out four Democratic incumbents who opposed Kavanaugh.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Additionally, can a small town local judge order the president not to send his troops into a particular battle if someone sues him to counter his military decisions?

I wouldn't think so. That wouldn't be a matter of interpreting the law, but rather of commanding the troops.

Brandon9000 wrote:

If a judge ordered a president not to defend the country against an imminent attack, would he have to go through the lengthy appeals process?

In such an occurrence, the President should ask for an emergency stay of the ruling from higher courts.

If such a stay was not granted, and if the President decided to ignore this order for the good of the nation, then it would be up to Congress to decide whether he was right to do so, or whether he should be impeached and removed from office for having done so.

Ignoring the courts should always result in at least consideration of impeachment by Congress, even if they ultimately decide to not go forward with impeachment.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Could a court order that a declaration of War by Congress was unconstitutional and void?

No.

Aha! Right! Maybe some of the other things a court might order the president to do which we've been discussing above wouldn't actually be interpreting the law either, but infringing on executive function. The thing is, the courts are crafty enough to always claim that they're interpreting the law, so they might declare the president's placement of troops unconstitutional.

Based on your assumption that one branch of government can order another around, contrary to the separation of powers.

Above you agreed that if a court ordered the president not to send his troops into some particular battle, they would be infringing on the function of the executive branch. I believe that ordering the president not to defend the country would be an even stronger example of the same principle. The founders did not intend the courts to direct military operations.

So, if someone sued Congress for declaring war and a court declared that particular declaration of war unconstitutional, do you think that Congress should appeal to a higher court? I do not.

I think such a finding should be ignored, and I don't thing that would be "breaking the law." A court decision is not a law. The Constitution gives the Congress the sole right to declare war. In such a case, the court would be acting outside of its authority. The three branches of government are separate and equal.

oralloy wrote:

Why use a weaker warhead when a half-megaton warhead will do the same job?

If you and your relatives are alive after a neuclair war explain your reasoning to them and hope that they don't use one of your guns on you.

RABEL222 wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Why use a weaker warhead when a half-megaton warhead will do the same job?

If you and your relatives are alive after a neuclair war explain your reasoning to them and hope that they don't use one of your guns on you.

I notice that you could provide no justification for warheads weaker than half-megaton.

BillRM wrote:

Due to there being no military reason to used such weapons given our now pin point weapons accurate.

There is also no military reason to use weaker warheads.

And actually there is a military reason for more powerful warheads: The bigger the explosion, the more effective the destruction.

BillRM wrote:

Footnote just randomly killing large numbers of civilians is not part of any military purpose an fall under the label of terrorism and war crimes.

I'm sure that our warheads are aimed at military targets.

https://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/NTPR/4-Rad_Exp_Rpts/36_The_Effects_of_Nuclear_Weapons.pdf

PREFACE
When “The Effects of Atomic Weapons” was published in 1950, the explosive
energy yields of the fission bombs available at that time were equivalent to some
thousands of tons (i.e., kilotons) of TNT. With the development of thermonuclear
(fusion) weapons, having energy yields in the range of millions of tons (i.e.,
megatons) of TNT, a new presentation, entitled “The Effects of Nuclear Weapons,”
was issued in 1957. A completely revised edition was published in 1962 and
this was reprinted with a few changes early in 1964.
Since the last version of “The Effects of Nuclear Weapons” was prepared, much
new information has become available concerning nuclear weapons effects. This
has come in part from the series of atmospheric tests, including several at very high
altitudes, conducted in the Pacific Ocean area in 1962. In addition, laboratory
studies, theoretical calculations, and computer simulations have provided a better
understanding of the various effects. Within the limits imposed by security requirements,
the new information has been incorporated in the present edition. In
particular, attention may be called to a new chapter on the electromagnetic pulse.
We should emphasize, as has been done in the earlier editions, that numerical
values given in this book are not-and cannot be+xact. They must inevitably
include a substantial margin of error. Apart from the difficulties in making
measurements of weapons effects, the results are often dependent upon circumstances
which could not be predicted in the event of a nuclear attack. Furthermore,
two weapons of different design may have the same explosive energy yield, but the
effects could be markedly different. Where such possibilities exist, attention is
called in the text to the limitations of the data presented; these limitations should not
be overlooked.
The material is arranged in a

You know first the right wing had given us the fear of mass killings of our children in schools by not even considering that there is no earthly reason to allow the purchase of high power weapons to those who we do not allow or trust the buying of a can of bear yet

and now some of them wish to return to the days where we teach our children to go under their desks as protection from nuclear war!!!!!!

Please please name the military targets that need half a megaton warhead to deal with.

BillRM wrote:

Please please name the military targets that need half a megaton warhead to deal with.

What does need have to do with anything? More effective destruction is not necessary. It is merely desirable. And keep in mind that there is no reason to use weaker warheads.

At any rate, any military base with a one-mile radius would benefit from a half-megaton explosion. So would any industrial zone with a radius of one and a half miles.

Here are damage radii for a 455 kt explosion at a one kilometer burst height:

Code:50 psi .68 mile (1.1 km)
20 psi 1.1 mile (1.9 km)
12 psi 1.6 mile (2.5 km)
5 psi 2.6 mile (4.2 km)
2 psi 4.8 mile (7.7 km)
.5 psi 13 mile (20 km)

Having more-potent explosions could also turn near misses into hard kills if the weapons are attacking enemy missile silos.

Newsflash: Nuclear war causes widespread damage.

If we destroy a military base with a nuclear weapon, it is going to be for a good military reason.

We are not going to prosecute our government or our military for defending the country during a nuclear war.