Commander in Chief Trump should have ordered the military to protect this country’s borders the day after Nutso got her dirty hands on the speaker’s gavel.
Can anybody answer this question: Can a federal judge stop the commander in chief from using the U.S. military to defend the country on the border? My answer is NO. President Trump’s constitutional authority as commander in chief is absolute.
More importantly, every president does NOT have to stop defending the border while the case works it way up to the Supreme Court.
NOTE: Democrats began shopping for the right judge on the day President Trump announced he would use the military to build the wall. Democrat strategy relies on one Democrat judge halting construction until after the 2020 election.
Here is another question if the SCOTUS upholds a lower court judge: Can the commander in chief ignore the Supreme Court? My answer is YES. It comes down to which branch of government controls the U.S. military —— the Courts, the Congress, or the Administrative Branch; i.e. the president.
Parenthetically, the three branches are said to be equal. In truth the U.S. military makes the commander in chief more equal. So exactly how many well-armed Americans can unelected federal judges, or Congress, or both, order Americans to fight against the military when the military is defending the country?
And where did the Supreme Court get the authority to decide everything? Decades ago I read that the Warren Court gave itself that authority in 1957. The other two branches let it happen instead of challenging the Warren Court. The legislative branch should have said “All final decisions reside with the Congress.” President Eisenhower should then have said “You are both wrong. The president is the final arbiter of everything —— and I have the military to prove it.” Had Ike said it the American people would still have some checks and balances to talk about. Nothing was said because it was all office politics without giving a thought to private sector Americans who are the ultimate beneficiaries of real checks and balances.
Democrats have been ordering Americans how to behave, what to buy, what to think, how to speak, and so on. I am pretty sure Democrats can and will issue the order to fight against the military. I am just as certain that no American will take up arms against the very men and woman defending the country.
I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss checks and balances in-depth. When I talk about the Supreme Court I only express my opinion, or my interpretation, or make a prediction.
Democrats thwarted checks and balances for decades. So I never found checks or balances when it came to judicial legislation advancing the Democrat Party’s International political orientation.
Supreme Court justices have enough authority to decide every domestic issue to the point of sneaking judicial legislation in through the back door. I never understood how that authority extended to making foreign policy?
The enormous damage that activist judges have inflicted on the United States is described in the new book by Judge Robert H. Bork called "Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges." The title is rather misleading; the judicial oligarchy is not dictating virtue but enforcing a new ideology that Bork calls "lifestyle socialism."
President Bush finally speaks out against activist judges
Phyllis Schlafly
Posted: Feb 02, 2004 12:00 AM
https://townhall.com/columnists/phy...y-speaks-out-against-activist-judges-n1151781
There has never been any doubt that leading Democrats are determined to abolish this country’s sovereignty. Sneaking international and foreign courts into domestic issues is a very clever first step on the road to surrendering sovereignty to international institutions.
Finally, Ann Coulter covers Trump’s authority pretty good. Note the touchy-feely misuse of this country’s military in foreign lands:
Notice the revulsion Adams expressed for touchy-feely garbage in the complete quotation:
Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America’s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. John Quincy Adams (1767–1848)
Can anybody answer this question: Can a federal judge stop the commander in chief from using the U.S. military to defend the country on the border? My answer is NO. President Trump’s constitutional authority as commander in chief is absolute.
More importantly, every president does NOT have to stop defending the border while the case works it way up to the Supreme Court.
NOTE: Democrats began shopping for the right judge on the day President Trump announced he would use the military to build the wall. Democrat strategy relies on one Democrat judge halting construction until after the 2020 election.
Here is another question if the SCOTUS upholds a lower court judge: Can the commander in chief ignore the Supreme Court? My answer is YES. It comes down to which branch of government controls the U.S. military —— the Courts, the Congress, or the Administrative Branch; i.e. the president.
Parenthetically, the three branches are said to be equal. In truth the U.S. military makes the commander in chief more equal. So exactly how many well-armed Americans can unelected federal judges, or Congress, or both, order Americans to fight against the military when the military is defending the country?
And where did the Supreme Court get the authority to decide everything? Decades ago I read that the Warren Court gave itself that authority in 1957. The other two branches let it happen instead of challenging the Warren Court. The legislative branch should have said “All final decisions reside with the Congress.” President Eisenhower should then have said “You are both wrong. The president is the final arbiter of everything —— and I have the military to prove it.” Had Ike said it the American people would still have some checks and balances to talk about. Nothing was said because it was all office politics without giving a thought to private sector Americans who are the ultimate beneficiaries of real checks and balances.
Democrats have been ordering Americans how to behave, what to buy, what to think, how to speak, and so on. I am pretty sure Democrats can and will issue the order to fight against the military. I am just as certain that no American will take up arms against the very men and woman defending the country.
I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss checks and balances in-depth. When I talk about the Supreme Court I only express my opinion, or my interpretation, or make a prediction.
Democrats thwarted checks and balances for decades. So I never found checks or balances when it came to judicial legislation advancing the Democrat Party’s International political orientation.
Supreme Court justices have enough authority to decide every domestic issue to the point of sneaking judicial legislation in through the back door. I never understood how that authority extended to making foreign policy?
The enormous damage that activist judges have inflicted on the United States is described in the new book by Judge Robert H. Bork called "Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges." The title is rather misleading; the judicial oligarchy is not dictating virtue but enforcing a new ideology that Bork calls "lifestyle socialism."
XXXXX
Americans generally believe that bloodless revolutions come only dressed in military garb, but Bork details how the United States has suffered a "coup d'etat" from the men and women in black robes who have changed us "from the rule of law to the rule of judges." He agrees with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that the high court "is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize."
XXXXX
Bork criticizes the citing of foreign sources by seven Supreme Court justices to justify their unconstitutional decisions. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has succumbed to what Bork calls ‘the insidious appeal of internationalism,’ predicts that ‘we will rely increasingly on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues’.”
President Bush finally speaks out against activist judges
Phyllis Schlafly
Posted: Feb 02, 2004 12:00 AM
https://townhall.com/columnists/phy...y-speaks-out-against-activist-judges-n1151781
There has never been any doubt that leading Democrats are determined to abolish this country’s sovereignty. Sneaking international and foreign courts into domestic issues is a very clever first step on the road to surrendering sovereignty to international institutions.
Finally, Ann Coulter covers Trump’s authority pretty good. Note the touchy-feely misuse of this country’s military in foreign lands:
It’s great that members of Congress have located specific legislative language permitting the president to build a border wall, but I’m wondering: Has anybody read the Constitution?
It says:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
“(The president) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
With millions of foreigners illegally pouring across our border, it sure looks like the laws are not being “faithfully executed.” I wonder if the COMMANDER IN CHIEF has any authority to stop it.
The Constitution was expressly designed to make it difficult to do what our military does all the time – fight wars around the globe – and easy to do what our military never does – defend our own country.
Congress was given power to “declare war,” but not to “make war,” for the precise purpose of stalling the march to war. It was a selling point that the legislative branch takes forever to do anything.
But we had a country to protect, so the Constitution gave the energetic, fast-moving president the authority to deploy the military defensively.
As Duke University constitutional law professor H. Jefferson Powell put it in his 2002 book, “The President’s Authority over Foreign Affairs”: “(T)he president has a constitutional responsibility, independent of any act of Congress … to preserve the physical safety … of the United States against foreign threat.”
(Powell, who served in both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice, is probably wishing he never wrote that, now that Trump is president. Too late! You can’t disavow facts.)
Here are excerpts from the minutes of the Constitutional Convention on Aug. 17, 1787, when the framers deliberated the government’s war powers:
“‘To make war’
“Mr. (Charles) Pinckney opposed the vesting this power in the Legislature. Its proceedings were too slow. …
“Mr. (James) Madison and Mr. (Elbridge) Gerry moved to insert ‘declare,’ striking out ‘make’ war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
“Mr. (Roger) Sherman thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war. …
“Mr. (Oliver) Ellsworth. … (I)t shd. be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration. Peace attended with intricate (and) secret negotiations.
“Mr. (George) Mason … was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred ‘declare’ to ‘make.’
“On the Motion to insert declare – in place of Make, it was agreed to. … (Ayes – 7; noes – 2; absent – 1.)”
We’ve come a long way from the founders’ vision for America, as put by John Quincy Adams: “(America) goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. …”
It says:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
“(The president) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
With millions of foreigners illegally pouring across our border, it sure looks like the laws are not being “faithfully executed.” I wonder if the COMMANDER IN CHIEF has any authority to stop it.
The Constitution was expressly designed to make it difficult to do what our military does all the time – fight wars around the globe – and easy to do what our military never does – defend our own country.
Congress was given power to “declare war,” but not to “make war,” for the precise purpose of stalling the march to war. It was a selling point that the legislative branch takes forever to do anything.
But we had a country to protect, so the Constitution gave the energetic, fast-moving president the authority to deploy the military defensively.
As Duke University constitutional law professor H. Jefferson Powell put it in his 2002 book, “The President’s Authority over Foreign Affairs”: “(T)he president has a constitutional responsibility, independent of any act of Congress … to preserve the physical safety … of the United States against foreign threat.”
(Powell, who served in both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice, is probably wishing he never wrote that, now that Trump is president. Too late! You can’t disavow facts.)
Here are excerpts from the minutes of the Constitutional Convention on Aug. 17, 1787, when the framers deliberated the government’s war powers:
“‘To make war’
“Mr. (Charles) Pinckney opposed the vesting this power in the Legislature. Its proceedings were too slow. …
“Mr. (James) Madison and Mr. (Elbridge) Gerry moved to insert ‘declare,’ striking out ‘make’ war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
“Mr. (Roger) Sherman thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war. …
“Mr. (Oliver) Ellsworth. … (I)t shd. be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration. Peace attended with intricate (and) secret negotiations.
“Mr. (George) Mason … was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred ‘declare’ to ‘make.’
“On the Motion to insert declare – in place of Make, it was agreed to. … (Ayes – 7; noes – 2; absent – 1.)”
We’ve come a long way from the founders’ vision for America, as put by John Quincy Adams: “(America) goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. …”
Notice the revulsion Adams expressed for touchy-feely garbage in the complete quotation:
Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America’s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. John Quincy Adams (1767–1848)
Since World War II, presidents have repeatedly flung our troops all over the globe without a declaration of war from Congress. It’s evidently the commander in chief’s job to be starting wars thousands of miles away from us, but outrageous for him to defend actual Americans living in America.
We have fought what look like “wars” in Korea, Iraq and Yugoslavia – all on the president’s say-so, with little or no congressional involvement, least of all a declaration of war.
This is the precise opposite of the Constitution’s words, framework and intent.
Starting wars was supposed to be difficult. Defending the nation was supposed to be easy. Indeed, repelling attacks on our border is so important that both the legislature and president are given authority to do so.
But today, it’s considered perfectly normal that U.S. troops are fighting in 14 countries most Americans couldn’t name, while our border is wide open.
You can say that illegal aliens streaming across our border is not a “military invasion,” but, as even George W. Bush recognized after the 9/11 attack: We are in a new kind of war now.
This is not the Franco-Prussian War, fought with colors and feathers, but a war of “lone wolves” and millions of civilians breaking into our country and harming our citizens.
Who can say with a straight face that the importation of tens of millions of Latin Americans has not changed the character of our country, the safety of our people and the economic prospects of so many of our fellow countrymen?
The conditions on the ground in Vichy France were less altered by war than the conditions on the ground in America today, compared with America circa 1980.
By the way, what, precisely, is the “military purpose” of building schools in Djibouti? How about building walls, schools, bridges, hospitals, roads and water purification systems in places like Vietnam and Iraq?
Our military did that!
The U.S. Navy Seabees and Army Corps of Engineers have built all kinds of non-military infrastructure in, among other places, Djibouti, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Somalia, the Congo, Cambodia and Grenada – even in little Micronesia (population: 100,000).
A couple of years ago, an American sailor who had just helped build a school in Ban Nong Muang, Thailand, was proudly quoted in Seabee Magazine: “My recruiter told me to join the Seabees. He said they build schools in foreign countries for kids.”
The U.S. military does these things in other countries but, we’re told, can’t build a wall in our own.
At this point, our only hope may be for the border states to secede from the Union and form their own nation, so that we can send troops to build them a wall. They could call their new country “YouMustGoBackistan.”
Democrats and the media (and 90 percent of Republicans) believe the president has the authority to use the military to build walls, schools, hospitals and water purification systems – anywhere but here.
They believe the president has the authority to bomb innocent Syrians because Ivanka cried.
The one thing they say the commander in chief cannot do is deploy the military in defense of the United States of America.
Mr. President, break ground today!
We have fought what look like “wars” in Korea, Iraq and Yugoslavia – all on the president’s say-so, with little or no congressional involvement, least of all a declaration of war.
This is the precise opposite of the Constitution’s words, framework and intent.
Starting wars was supposed to be difficult. Defending the nation was supposed to be easy. Indeed, repelling attacks on our border is so important that both the legislature and president are given authority to do so.
But today, it’s considered perfectly normal that U.S. troops are fighting in 14 countries most Americans couldn’t name, while our border is wide open.
You can say that illegal aliens streaming across our border is not a “military invasion,” but, as even George W. Bush recognized after the 9/11 attack: We are in a new kind of war now.
This is not the Franco-Prussian War, fought with colors and feathers, but a war of “lone wolves” and millions of civilians breaking into our country and harming our citizens.
Who can say with a straight face that the importation of tens of millions of Latin Americans has not changed the character of our country, the safety of our people and the economic prospects of so many of our fellow countrymen?
The conditions on the ground in Vichy France were less altered by war than the conditions on the ground in America today, compared with America circa 1980.
By the way, what, precisely, is the “military purpose” of building schools in Djibouti? How about building walls, schools, bridges, hospitals, roads and water purification systems in places like Vietnam and Iraq?
Our military did that!
The U.S. Navy Seabees and Army Corps of Engineers have built all kinds of non-military infrastructure in, among other places, Djibouti, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Somalia, the Congo, Cambodia and Grenada – even in little Micronesia (population: 100,000).
A couple of years ago, an American sailor who had just helped build a school in Ban Nong Muang, Thailand, was proudly quoted in Seabee Magazine: “My recruiter told me to join the Seabees. He said they build schools in foreign countries for kids.”
The U.S. military does these things in other countries but, we’re told, can’t build a wall in our own.
At this point, our only hope may be for the border states to secede from the Union and form their own nation, so that we can send troops to build them a wall. They could call their new country “YouMustGoBackistan.”
Democrats and the media (and 90 percent of Republicans) believe the president has the authority to use the military to build walls, schools, hospitals and water purification systems – anywhere but here.
They believe the president has the authority to bomb innocent Syrians because Ivanka cried.
The one thing they say the commander in chief cannot do is deploy the military in defense of the United States of America.
Mr. President, break ground today!
Hey, Commander! Start commanding!
Posted By Ann Coulter On 02/06/2019 @ 6:03 pm
https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/hey-commander-start-commanding/
Posted By Ann Coulter On 02/06/2019 @ 6:03 pm
https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/hey-commander-start-commanding/
