- 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 3:11 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:11 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You speak so definitively without having much actual knowledge.
Don’t paste a link. Argue for yourself. Anyone can google something and find law professors willing to argue any given side of any issue.
1
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:12 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Don’t paste a link. Argue for yourself. Anyone can google something and find law professors willing to argue any given side of any issue.
You ask me for links. Then complain when they don’t say what you like.
Just take your L. Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:13 pm to therick711
quote:
prefer to think you were ignorant rather than dumb. Your call.
What are you talking about?
What would be the point of a requirement that the Senate approve of a treaty if POTUS can unilaterally withdraw from it?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:13 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You ask me for links. Then complain when they don’t say what you like. Just take your L.
This coming from a guy who doesn’t understand the difference between lease payments and subsidies.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:15 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
What would be the point of a requirement that the Senate approve of a treaty if POTUS can unilaterally withdraw from it?
Washington and Jefferson apparently disagree with you. The president must receive advice and consent to enter obligations to other countries, but can terminate obligations under his foreign affair article II powers.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:15 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Even fricking Yale law review concedes the traditional legal scholars say the President can.
Even where Congress has put conditions on said withdrawal?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:16 pm to therick711
quote:
Washington and Jefferson apparent disagree with you. The president must receive advice and consent to enter obligations to other countries, but can terminate obligations under his foreign affair article II powers.
And when Congress requires approval before withdrawal as a condition of its approval?
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:16 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
This coming from a guy who doesn’t understand the difference between lease payments and subsidies.
is a subsidy a gift. I’ve asked three times. Once you answer that we can explore if the us is subsidizing other countries. Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:17 pm to Indefatigable
Congress purports to do things all the time that are beyond its power. Check out, for instance, the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act. Unconstitutional waiver of state sovereign immunity. Just one example.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:17 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And when Congress requires approval before withdrawal?
Good lord. That’s his entire point. They may not have that power. How is this going so far over your head?
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:17 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
is a subsidy a gift.
Gift is subjective. But sure, it’s free money.
Leading foreign assets is not a subsidy or gift.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:18 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And when Congress requires approval before withdrawal as a condition of its approval?
Why would they even have to do that if the president didn't have that power, though. QED.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:19 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Gift is subjective. But sure, it’s free money.
not quite as definitive as it should be, but close enough. Now….
quote:
the U.S. effectively subsidizes other NATO countries' military capabilities through its disproportionately large defense spending, contributing significantly more than its share of the alliance's total budget and GDP, funding shared NATO functions, and maintaining a large U.S. military presence in Europe, which benefits allies by enhancing collective security and interoperability, though some argue it encourages allies to underinvest in their own defense.
Glad we could clear that up.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:19 pm to therick711
quote:
Congress purports to do things all the time that are beyond its power.
If SCOTUS actually upheld that way in this context, do you not think that would be a net negative?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:20 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
the U.S. effectively subsidizes other NATO countries' military capabilities through its disproportionately large defense spending, contributing significantly more than its share of the alliance's total budget and GDP, funding shared NATO functions, and maintaining a large U.S. military presence in Europe, which benefits allies by enhancing collective security and interoperability, though some argue it encourages allies to underinvest in their own defense.
Grok or chatGPT?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:20 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Grok or chatGPT?
NOW you want links? Make up your mind.
Which would be better in your opinion?
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:21 pm to Indefatigable
All I ever said was it would be an interesting exercise, you responded that it was a decided issue, which it is not. I would imagine the supreme court would continue to abstain. Also, I'm not sure what you are saying scotus might hold.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:23 pm to therick711
quote:
Also, I'm not sure what you are saying scotus might hold.
My gut, and hope, would be that Congress’ requirement that Senate approval be necessary with withdrawal, would be considered a condition of the Senate’s ratification of the treaty.
The alternative isn’t logical.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:24 pm to Indefatigable
Sure it is. The Senate exercises advise and consent on nominations and the president can then unilaterally fire cabinet heads, recall ambassadors, fire us attorneys. It would actually fit much better in the framework for it to be as everyone since Washington assumed.
Also, the congress attempted to impose this condition in the 2024 ndaa, not as a ratification of NATO which occurred in 1949.
Also, the congress attempted to impose this condition in the 2024 ndaa, not as a ratification of NATO which occurred in 1949.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:25 pm to TigersBucs
quote:
Time for the 25th Amendment.
This shite again??
Page 8 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News