- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:57 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:57 pm to LSURussian
quote:Yes. He is crazy af.
Is President Trump starting to lose his mind??
1
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:58 pm to Indefatigable
Making treaties. The president has always had the power to withdraw from them.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:00 pm to LSURussian
quote:
That's not the only thing POTUS has said recently which makes me question his mental stability.
Give us some more….
And is a subsidy a gift?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:00 pm to tide06
quote:
You forgot to explain why we need to protect Europe on a permanent basis at our own expense in terms of how that benefits you or me.
We aren’t there to protect Europe.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:01 pm to therick711
quote:
Making treaties. The president has always had the power to withdraw from them.
…..no. Source?
What you’re suggesting would render the Senate approval requirement farcical/meaningless, which is pretty much a no-go in legal interpretation.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:02 pm to L1C4
quote:
Yes. He is crazy af.
Lol
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:03 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
no. Source? What you’re suggesting would render the Senate approval requirement farcical/meaningless, which is pretty much a no-go in legal interpretation.
LINK
Yale law review is arguing against thetraditional legal theory that the President can unilaterally withdraw.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:04 pm to Indefatigable
The source is article II section 2, DOJ opinions, and the practical experience from president Washington to Trump of doing so.
See also Goldwater v. Carter where the supreme court abstained from the question.
See also Goldwater v. Carter where the supreme court abstained from the question.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:04 pm to LetsGoBrandon
Largest island on Earth located in the Western Hemisphere; strategically important to Arctic and Atlantic trade/defense routes, polar space, substantial potential production of oil and mineral reserves limited only by investment/demand (and mind-virus-infected environmentalists).
‘Semi’ Autonomous territory of an imperial entity: Denmark, and member of EU.
Population: 56,000 - about the size of Dodger Stadium. Mostly Inuit, 90+% Christian.
98% of Greenlanders subsist on government welfare that includes healthcare, education, law enforcement, military (hahaha), transportation, and nutrition. This amounts to at least 1 billion from Denmark, annually - 1/3 of GDP. Primary economy is seafood and I’m very limited tourism
This shouldn’t even be a conversation. Bare minimum, USA should tell the EU (and Denmark) no NATO, no alliance, no tariff relief unless the USA has carte blanche in Greenland essentially do whatever it deems necessary in its national security and economic interests.
What are they gonna do, say no?
I’d bet that the local population would come around real quick once they experienced the benefits of having a super power big brother who protects freedom…
‘Semi’ Autonomous territory of an imperial entity: Denmark, and member of EU.
Population: 56,000 - about the size of Dodger Stadium. Mostly Inuit, 90+% Christian.
98% of Greenlanders subsist on government welfare that includes healthcare, education, law enforcement, military (hahaha), transportation, and nutrition. This amounts to at least 1 billion from Denmark, annually - 1/3 of GDP. Primary economy is seafood and I’m very limited tourism
This shouldn’t even be a conversation. Bare minimum, USA should tell the EU (and Denmark) no NATO, no alliance, no tariff relief unless the USA has carte blanche in Greenland essentially do whatever it deems necessary in its national security and economic interests.
What are they gonna do, say no?
I’d bet that the local population would come around real quick once they experienced the benefits of having a super power big brother who protects freedom…
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:06 pm to BBONDS25
It would have to be a SCOTUS issue, because it hasn’t been litigated. Won’t argue that.
But holding that POTUS can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty that required Senate approval to enter into does not make sense. It renders Senate approval meaningless, that’s not something courts tend to sign on for. It effectively voids the requirement.
But holding that POTUS can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty that required Senate approval to enter into does not make sense. It renders Senate approval meaningless, that’s not something courts tend to sign on for. It effectively voids the requirement.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:07 pm to therick711
quote:
The source is article II section 2, DOJ opinions, and the practical experience from president Washington to Trump of doing so. See also Goldwater v. Carter where the supreme court abstained from the question.
It would be an issue of first impression. No argument there
Ruling that way would shock me though. And it would be an erosion of general legal and constitutional interpretation that no one should support.
SCOTUS doesn’t like “well they made this rule to make sure two branches have a say but only one really has the power” type of thing.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:07 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
But holding that POTUS can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty that required Senate approval to enter into does not make sense. It renders Senate approval meaningless, that’s not something courts tend to sign on for. It effectively voids the requirement.
You agree with the Yale law review which is at odds with the traditional legal scholars take.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:08 pm to Indefatigable
No it won't. The supreme court abstained under its political question doctrine. Congress would have to impeach and convict that the senate is required to terminate. That's the landscape. Interesting that you would speak so definitively on the issue given you haven't really looked at it.
As to impeachment, would be very difficult to justify given Washington, Jefferson, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump twice have all done it unilaterally.
As to impeachment, would be very difficult to justify given Washington, Jefferson, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump twice have all done it unilaterally.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:09 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Yale law review is arguing against thetraditional legal theory that the President can unilaterally withdraw.
Yes. It is against traditional legal theory that POTUS can withdraw.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:09 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
an erosion of general legal and constitutional interpretation
This is just false. Man. You speak so definitively without having much actual knowledge.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:09 pm to Tiger n Austin
quote:
Since when does Trump give 2 shits what another coequal branch of government thinks.
I’m glad he doesn’t care.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:10 pm to therick711
quote:
The supreme court abstained under its political question doctrine. Congress would have to impeach and convict that the senate is required to terminate. That's the landscape. Interesting that you would speak so definitively on the issue given you haven't really looked at it.
Who said I haven’t looked at it?
I don’t think they would abstain based on a 50 year old case. Unilateral withdrawal from NATO would be a foundational issue that SCOTUS could not and should not avoid.
The political question at the time over Taiwan pales in comparison and it was a MUCH weaker Court.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:10 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Yes. It is against traditional legal theory that POTUS can withdraw.
didn’t read the first paragraph of the link, did you? Even fricking Yale law review concedes the traditional legal scholars say the President can. You opine with such hubris from a place of complete ignorance. Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:10 pm to Indefatigable
I prefer to think you were ignorant rather than dumb. Your call.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:11 pm to therick711
quote:
As to impeachment, would be very difficult to justify given Washington, Jefferson, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump twice have all done it unilaterally.
beautiful. 
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News