Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what happens to the President who refuses to enforce laws that he disagrees with such as the anti-illegal immigration laws and DOMA?
Presidents have been picking and choosing which laws to enforce since Andrew Jackson. That's no reason to ruin a good thing by staging a yahoo revolution.
According the the Huffington Post, the Marine Corps has started removal proceedings against the Sergeant, who has doubled down on his postings and has disobeyed orders to stop.
He'll be gone before April Fool's Day. Somebody ought to stick a pointed cap on his head right now so he'll be used to it when he gets his discharge. You know that discharge ain't gonna say 'Honorable' anywhere on it.
And there is still time to put himself in the brig for 6 months before he gets escorted out the gate. Disobeying a direct order can accomplish that in a half-day, easy. There is not a pleasant hour spent in a Marine brig.
If Romney wins and we're still in Afghanistan, you'll do enough contortions for both of us.
Not really -- my position on Afghanistan hasn't changed since 9/12/2001. I, like Obama and many Democrats who are realists when it comes to war, have always seen Afghanistan as a necessary fight. It's Iraq I hated. I saw that as a disastrous diversion at at time we had a real enemy who needed killing. I will damn the Cheney administration until my dying day for pulling that stunt. However, I'll support the war in Afghanistan in word and deed for as long as it lasts -- if we were there in 2025 with ground conditions similar to what they are today, I'd probably still back it. I get that Afghanistan is uniquely situated to harbor terrorists who mean us and our allies harm. We should stay for as long as it takes to stop them.. and if as long as it takes is indefinitely, so be it. If Romney is elected, he will follow pretty much the identical campaign plan that Obama will carry out if Obama wins again. The only thing that will change is who is cheering for what in the cheap seats. I predict you'll soften up your anti-war stance.
Not really -- my position on Afghanistan hasn't changed since 9/12/2001. I, like Obama and many Democrats who are realists when it comes to war, have always seen Afghanistan as a necessary fight. It's Iraq I hated. I saw that as a disastrous diversion at at time we had a real enemy who needed killing. I will damn the Cheney administration until my dying day for pulling that stunt. However, I'll support the war in Afghanistan in word and deed for as long as it lasts -- if we were there in 2025 with ground conditions similar to what they are today, I'd probably still back it. I get that Afghanistan is uniquely situated to harbor terrorists who mean us and our allies harm. We should stay for as long as it takes to stop them.. and if as long as it takes is indefinitely, so be it. If Romney is elected, he will follow pretty much the identical campaign plan that Obama will carry out if Obama wins again. The only thing that will change is who is cheering for what in the cheap seats. I predict you'll soften up your anti-war stance.
\
Tell me again what is necessary about bleeding our troops in a hellhole where the population hates us and the enemy has the tacit support of the "government" there we installed.
This is Vietnam II, my friend. And you know it. We're letting our guys die so that Obama can figure out to get us out of that tribal sh1thole filled with people in dresses who like to stone women to death for wanting to learn to read.
Talk about cheap seats: I did my time in a fuitle war while your predecssors were cheering on the Vietcong. So don't give me any of your partisan BS.
When our military is called into actual service, then the president is called into service as Commander-in-Chief and not until such time. Only Congress has the power to take our nation from a peacetime to a wartime status. I ran into quotes of some of our Founding Fathers again earlier today. They precisely stated this.
No president is Commander in Chief from the day of his inauguration till he is out of office for merely being President.
No president has the power to take our nation from peacetime to wartime--say the Founders.
Oh yes the Commander in Chief does have the power to commit troops into harms way. You know why? Because Congress delegated that power to him.
Congress certainly has the Constitutional authority to do that and it's entirely legal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
