About that: RT - Sophie & Co - Use of tactical nukes would still spell full-blown nuclear war – ex-US Defense Sec

And now back to our 'trustworthy' media - this is also rather interesting:

Though that article is months old now - and I wonder why nobody talked about this either, hrmmmmmm I wonder.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...lary-advisors/

Donald Trump last night:

Terror attack? I still don't believe it!


I do believe (and agree with) you though, hazel! What proof? See quote above!

Lionel Nation - Trump’s Bloody War Against Mainstream Media Fake Newsers and the Palace Coup That’s Rumbling
Lionel Nation - Mainstream Media Alt-Left Anti-Trump Fake News: Fighting for Their Life Push Lie That Trump’s Insane

As others have said, "if your objective is to 'drain the swamps,'" expect turmoil in the swamps!

The west-coast Federal Court is supremely confident that it will continue to be able to "create law by proclamation," overruling both the President (who is attempting to exercise power granted by Congress), and the Legislature (who sought to grant those powers), and for that matter the judges in all other Circuits, just as they have always done.

They quite calmly and expectantly consider themselves to be the sole arbiters of what the President may or may not do; and of what laws the Congress may or may not enact. Anyone who doesn't like what anyone else is doing must merely pray (file a lawsuit) and these Judges Kings will hand down an(other) edict. And every other part of the United States Government shall do obeisance to these Kings, on bended knee...

"... for surely none of them can do anything about it." Why? "Because the Court said so, that's why!"

"Uhh, but who gave the Court this authority? Where in the Const..." There is a thunderous explosion of noise. "We are OZ, the Great and the Terrible! Pay no attention to the men sitting on that bench with black robes on!"

Just as Thomas Jefferson(!) foresaw.

Here, for perhaps the first time in about two hundred years, we have a President who is very outspoken(!) in calling such things to question. As, I think, he should be.

"The Swamp™," you see, is much more than corruption in a particular legislator, judge, or government official. It's really about "how the whole damned thing works right now." The US Federal Government, as a whole, has become very, very sick. And part of its sickness is that no one has yet shown a light upon it and started to ask serious questions, such as: "Why?"

For example: the Constitution never said, anywhere, that the Courts (at any level) could declare that a President could not exercise his lawful powers as granted to him by the Legislature, nor that the Courts could overrule, countermand, or in any way alter an act of the Legislature. Nevertheless, "creeping" over time as Jefferson and his contemporaries warned, the Court has done precisely this.

As Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and many others warned us, in so doing it has surreptitiously usurped the power of both the Executive and the Legislature(s), placing itself alone as the true "law-uttering" monarch privy council of the land.

Then, an Executive comes along and asks a simple question: "Why?"

Does, in fact, the Honorable Court have any authority or any prerogative whatever to do such things?

And, is the Court correct in ruling based on its previous rulings, instead of what the Legislature has done?

The Constitution never says that any judge or justice is appointed "for life." (The judges in your town or county, for example, are routinely re-elected ... by you!) It never said that the President is the one to appoint them. It never said. It never said. It never said. What should we do?

All of these are very valid (and, very old) questions. But they haven't been (re-)asked in a very long time.

Too long, I think.

But it's not that simple. The point at issue is whether what Trump has proposed is lawful under the Constitution. If it is not, then Congress had no right to grant him that power.

As I understand it, the American Constitution forbids any organ of government to discriminate either in favour of or against a particular religious community. Of course your founding fathers never envisaged a time when one particular religion would spawn a form of religious terrorism that would actually threaten the United States. But it has, and now there is no way of stopping these people that will not impact disproportionately on members of their religion compared with followers of other religions (or none). So the President's constitutional duty to protect his people clashes with his equal constitutional duty not to discriminate against people on religious grounds.

This seems to me to be precisely the kind of situation in which judges have to decide what the Constitution mandates here. In the UK, the position could be regularised by Parliament passing a law to say what the government is permitted to do. There have been many occasions in the past when Parliament has passed legislation to correct a judicial ruling that was clearly wrong. Parliament can do this because Parliament is supreme (or was before we joined the EU). But in America, the Constitution is supreme, and Congress cannot overrule it. At least that's how this Englishwoman understands it.

What the US Constitution actually says, in Amendment #1: is ... ... and "that's it!"

The Courts, acting on their self-appointed philosophy of "the shadow of the Constitution," decided ruled that this meant that "no organ of government may discriminate either in favor of or against a particular religious community," as decided entirely by the Courts."

(Notice, in particular, that such matters ... according to the Courts ... are not eligible to be decided by, say, the Congress. Nor even that the Congress is allowed to have any say in the matter.)

Notice also that the Courts are responding – not to the law as supposedly created by Congress – but to "a law unto themselves." Namely, "their prior judicial decisions." A lower court rules, and higher courts rule on the rulings, and the Supreme Court rules on them, and all of this ... this body of judicial decisions ... becomes both "the effective law" and "the determinant of what Congress and the President may henceforth do." Which, of course, is "less and less and less."

Likewise, this "shadow of the Constitution" is free to be interpreted by serve as the basis for a new edict by the Courts ... and by the Courts alone ... with regard to anything and everything, including a national-security prerogative granted to the President by the Congress.

- - -

The problem, in the end, is that "the Constitution simply doesn't say." The entire document is one handwritten page. It has been formally amended only a few dozen times. Its actual role in Government is mostly symbolic, because it ... specifically, its "shadow" ... authorizes The Courts, in their sovereign prerogatives, to rule. Any act or opinion either of the Executive or the Legislature notwithstanding.

You see, even though the Congress authorized the President to have and to exercise sweeping powers, it really only takes a postage-stamped letter mailed by a lawyer to a Court in Washington State to create a new edict. The President cannot act, nor can the Congress issue any legislation whatever, but that the Superior Court Ninth Circuit shall grant imperial license that it be so ... until such time as the Superior Court may change its mind.

For law, in the United States, is not enacted by Congress through legislative process: it is enacted by decree, by the Imperial Courts (of a particular group of States). Likewise, the President has no power whatsoever, except as allowed him by the Imperial Courts.

The United States of America is, in fact, a monarchy, in the old-school sense of the word, ruled by a small handful of men and women in various places who – ruling for life with the Divine Right of Kings™ – hear the supplications of their penitents (anywhere in the nation, and likewise anywhere in the supposed Government thereof), and dictate according to their Sovereign Pleasure.™

- - -

This is obviously not what the framers of this Government intended, and it is very specifically an embodiment of precisely the thing that they feared the most.

Sundial, I wasn't going to reply to this thread at all, but I gotta say that most (if not anyone) I talk to here in OZ thinks your President is a joke!

The court for starters is an INDEPENDENT body, that decided that your president's order is unlawful. Based on your American Constitution, that the court did not write themselves. This is why the court exists, to make a decisions BASED on the law.

Why? Because it's CLEAR to any level minded person that he does not like Muslims and his "travel ban" was AIMED solely at them. And had NOTHING to do with keeping your country safe, and if so, then why has there not been an attack in Sweden, my country, etc for a long time now (at least a year)?

I also find it very interesting that NONE of the country's on that SAME list, where one's he has done business in before!

Your president has been caught out a number of times now, lieing! In the most recent example, making up that very same thing, he accesses the mainstream media for (see my post above, for ONE example)!

And sorry but a FACT is a FACT, NOT alternative fact, NOT "fake news"!

I'm sorry but your president cannot handle any criticism!

If he where running in an election here, I could NOT see him winning (or having a chance of that).

Don't misunderstand me, I DO understand why people voted for him (whether I personally agree with them OR NOT), but a lie IS a lie, full stop!

So that's why Trump believes there has been a terrorist attack in Sweden! You've just solved a riddle that was puzzling many of us.

Well, I'm always happy to help, but, in all honesty you do have some VERY valid points. And thought that you could do with some backup! Like I said before, I DO honesty understand why people are looking for alternatives. But I know, if I was making up story's as I go along, NOBODY would EVER believe anything I had to say! True story.

H.A. Goodman - CLINTON BREAKS LOGAN ACT WITH CHINESE AMBASSADOR IN WIKILEAKS PODESTA: Clinton Off Record Meeting

https://counterpropa.com/yes-cash-fl...-uranium-deal/
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/44291

-edit

H.A. Goodman - PODESTA, CLINTON CAMPAIGN PUSH FOR FBI TRUMP RUSSIA PROBE: Clinton Staff Forget HRC FBI Email Probe
https://counterpropa.com/yes-cash-fl...-uranium-deal/

It's very interesting to me how many people in Washington are openly jealous of the fact that this man has made thousands more million-dollar bills than any of them did in their careers as Federal employees.

As I said, this is a very old debate – it pretty much coincides with the adoption of the Constitution – and it goes like this:

1. The Congress deliberated and, exercising its Constitutional powers to control immigration, chose to grant the President broad prerogatives and powers.
2. The President chose to exercise those powers.
3. The Swamp began to boil. Lawsuits were filed, praying The Court for an Edict.
4. A Federal Court in Boston read the law and agreed with the President.
5. "Oops! Wrong coast!"
6. A Federal Court in Washington decided that "those nice people from Yemen are Muslims, and Muslim is a religion, therefore the President shall have no authority to exercise a decision that Congress authorized ... and that Congress could not even authorize such a thing because it might interfere with "the exercise of religion."
7. And the Constitution neither authorizes the Court to do this, nor in any way contemplates that it might. Indeed, both the word and the legal concept, "unconstitutional," does not exist anywhere.

The very-old Constitutional problem, of course, is that the Court is acting in the role of both Legislature and Executive. It is not "interpreting" the law that Congress made: it is setting the whole thing aside and imposing its own will.

There is a lot of material – in The Federalist, in comments made by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James K. Polk and many, many others – which specifically identifies this risk and speaks very openly against it.

It is entirely true that "the Constitution is inadequate." Granted, it was enacted in Philadelphia in a closed room when air-conditioning had not yet been invented. But no one has seriously "labored on it since." We seem to live in its prenumbra . . . whatever that means.

"Absurdity? Now, consider this!"

Herewith I present to you the case of an Alabama man, having been duly convicted of killing his girlfriend's husband more than 35 years ago, who is ... amazingly ... debating the issue of whether it is "constitutional" to execute him by means of a sedative, versus a firing squad.

And, believe it or not, thirty-five years later, the Circuit Court is not only "still debating it," but they have not yet come to a decision! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/u...ow-appeal.html

Okay ... okay ... I get it. "You actually can get away with murder," and avail yourself free-of-charge of the hospitality of the State of Alabama, so long as you your lawyers can still manage to come up with ... thirty-five years later(?!?!?) ... nonsense such as the following drivel:
I'm sorry, but ... I must ask ... "why is this judge still on the bench?!"

And ... "by exactly-what legal theory are such fogies able(!) to," not only "tie the hands of the State of Alabama," but, by extension, "tie the hands of both the US Congress and the US President?"

I assure you: The Russians (our Cold War Enemy™) the Communist™ Chinese (our Most-Favored Nation™) would not have such "difficulties" in administering the Verdict of Law.

Yes. they surely would have simply, somehow, thirty-five years ago, got it done.