+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 51
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 14955
Total Topics: 261
Most Online Today: 31
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 5
Total: 6

Author Topic: 🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠  (Read 3960 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31814
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Trump’s Actions Toward Ukraine Were Nothing Like Iran-Contra — They’re Worse

By Asha Rangappa


This defense is not only wrong as a matter of law and practice, it has the potential to backfire spectacularly against Trump.

It’s true that among the branches, the executive has the most latitude and discretion in the realm of foreign affairs. This is spelled out in powerful language in the 1936 Supreme Court case United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., which notes the president’s “plenary” foreign affairs authority and his role as the nation’s “sole organ” in international relations. Not surprisingly, this case is a favorite for supporters of expansive presidential power — the sweeping language appears to suggest unfettered presidential discretion in foreign policy.

What people often forget to mention is that Curtiss-Wright is actually a case where Congress delegated foreign affairs authority to the president. In fact, the legal question raised was whether Congress had unconstitutionally delegated too much discretion to the executive branch.

The case is an illustration of how the president’s power over foreign affairs can be shaped, expanded, or constrained by Congress’ constitutional powers in this area. Consider, for example, the Senate’s authority to ratify treaties negotiated by the president — it can tank an agreement reached by the president with a foreign head of state. Congress also holds the power to regulate international commerce, under which it can impose sanctions on countries as a way of incentivizing or discouraging particular kinds of behavior. Trump’s signature travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court under authority delegated to him by Congress’ immigration powers, not his own Article II authority. ...

... Calling his actions “foreign policy” won’t change the fact that Trump attempted to secretly subvert Congress’ constitutional authority by coercing a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen for his own personal gain.

Full article:

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
January 25, 2020, 05:46:35 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
January 25, 2020, 05:24:44 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
January 25, 2020, 04:39:27 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
January 25, 2020, 04:27:03 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
January 25, 2020, 03:57:00 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
January 25, 2020, 03:52:34 pm

Non-routine News by Surly1
January 25, 2020, 07:15:58 am

“It is now 100 seconds to midnight.” by Surly1
January 25, 2020, 06:59:03 am

Money by AGelbert
January 24, 2020, 08:02:28 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
January 24, 2020, 04:25:18 pm