-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
-
We hope the site problems here are now solved, however,
if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us
how far is trump to go for greenland
- Thread starter loveofourlord
- Start date
Laodicean60
Well-Known Member
- Jul 2, 2023
- 5,413
- 2,540
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Treaty powers under the Constitution
Article II, Section 2: The President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”
Implication:
President negotiates treaties with other nations.
Senate must approve by a 2/3 majority for it to become law.
Did law change the Constitution?
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Area Meathead
- Mar 11, 2017
- 24,152
- 17,795
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Has Trump negotiated a new treaty requiring ratification that we don't know about?
Upvote
0
Laodicean60
Well-Known Member
- Jul 2, 2023
- 5,413
- 2,540
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
No, he's not, but maybe after Greenland he might be mad enough to because of all those EU liberal resist Trump leaders, but I'm not aware of a law that can be created that forces future Presidents to maintain those treaties. The world and governments change through time.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Area Meathead
- Mar 11, 2017
- 24,152
- 17,795
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
What do you mean "after Greenland"? "after Greenland" NATO will be dead and Putin will invade Estonia.
Upvote
0
I love how the only move trump knows is tariffs, on countries that no longer really trade with the US because all he knows is tariffs heh. Oh no...more tariffs....anyway, china you want to finish this trade agreement?
Upvote
0
- Jul 19, 2012
- 18,494
- 17,282
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Nov 15, 2006
- 51,372
- 18,610
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Trumps agenda has to do with McDonald’s and KFC. Now that is new…..
Huh?
Upvote
0
- Dec 1, 2011
- 23,300
- 19,211
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
People got called traitors, threatened with court-martial, rank and pension reduced. It was a whole thing but that was more than five minutes ago.
Upvote
0
- Apr 19, 2012
- 33,061
- 6,482
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
The problem is that with big things like that the world is interconnected. If Russia were to attack a whole area like that it would almost certainly affect EVERYONE. This is not 200 years ago. or even 100 years ago the world is so interconnected now that any large conflict can affect the whole world.
Upvote
0
- Jul 19, 2012
- 18,494
- 17,282
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I think he responded to a post I made but didn't go back far enough to get the context of said post.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Area Meathead
- Mar 11, 2017
- 24,152
- 17,795
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
@Aryeh Jay will just need to check out a helo and go on a run to the McD's in Caracas for "El Grande con Queso".
Upvote
0
The Constitution does says the President negotiates treaties and the Senate confirms them, which implies that treaties are a two-branch function.
The Constitution does not give the President the unilateral power to withdraw from treaties; the Constitution is silent about how treaties are ended.
Historically, presidents have unilaterally withdrawn from treaties. Do presidents have powers the Constitution is silent on?
The Congress passed a law preventing the president from unilaterally withdrawing from the NATO treaty. Does the Congress have powers the Constitution is silent on?
I guess both questions will have to go to the Supreme Court.
Upvote
0
- Dec 5, 2019
- 1,246
- 710
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I wouldn't be either.
Independence and cooporation.
Having said that, it would be considerably difficult to implement given the Danes are not inclined to capitulate and surrender the statigic and economical value of Greenland.
Hence the saber rattling.
I doubt there exists any country that is capable of protecting Greenland would do so with purely altruistic motivation.
It is reasonable to expect that 'bad players' will make a move to aquire the territory in the future so it may be, as in the election, 'The lessor of two evils.'
So if need be, give them independence a work out treaties for protection and fair conpensation.
Let the Europeans posture and whine.
The Chinese and Russians are caught between giggling and fretting.
It's easy to react and argue online.
What are the alternatives?
Not that anyone in a position to remedy the issue is in this conversation.
Think about it.
Realistic solutions.
Upvote
0
Laodicean60
Well-Known Member
- Jul 2, 2023
- 5,413
- 2,540
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Ah, unilaterally, I bet it will go to court now because presidents have been breaking treaties in the past. Just because this is a BIG treaty makes no difference on legallity.
Upvote
0
- Apr 19, 2012
- 33,061
- 6,482
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
and that could be good to actually be able to have legal rules addressed. To actually clear up the issue.
Upvote
0
Nothing unrealistic about continuing the situation that has gone on since the early 50s.
Right now, Denmark provides 60% of Greenlands income/support with very little social or governmental intervention. The Greenland desire for independence is based more on emotion than on practicality. If cut totally free from all ties to Denmark, Greenland will have no choice but to lay themselves open to whatever commercial exploitation agreement they could get--and very quickly.
Right now, Greenland is protected from occupation by its weather and by NATO. Without NATO, they will have to enter into a defense agreement with some nation. The US is clearly not a reliable ally; even if US corporations gain all the commercial exploitation deals, US defense will be based on how freely corporations are able to exploit the island, not upon the island's actual defense needs.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
