It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump’s approval rating at 57% just days in

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

The "War Powers Resolution":



Ah the 1973 Resolution... Hmmm what did Clinton say back in 1994


In the modern era, executive branch lawyers have argued that the president, as commander in chief, may use military force unilaterally if he decides a strike would be in the national interest, at least when its anticipated nature, scope and duration fall short of “a ‘war’ in the constitutional sense,” as a Clinton administration lawyer wrote in the context of a contemplated intervention in Haiti.


But here we are again with the Oh No Trump mentality when what he does is not out of the norm.


It says a president may only introduce forces into hostilities with congressional authorization or if the United States has been attacked. But, confusingly, it also requires presidents to terminate deployments after 60 days if they lack authorization, which could suggest that one-off strikes and brief operations are allowed. Presidents of both parties have acted beyond the statute’s purported constraint about when they may launch an attack, seeing it as unconstitutionally narrow.


I do believe the strikes were less than 60 days....




posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Hmmm what did Clinton say back in 1994
One case? I guess that leaves 199 more examples to go.



I do believe the strikes were less than 60 days....

I do believe your source is ignoring § 1542, which I quoted above, which requires consultation with Congress before engaging in hostilities.


edit on 4/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

why are you deflecting and saying well hilary did it why shouldnt trump be able to? well trump was supposed to be different remember? so far trump just seems like bush 3.0 he is turning into what trump supporters hated most. don't you feel at least a little lets see whats the expression i'm looking for oh yes "stabbed in the back"?



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: conspiracy nut

why are you deflecting and saying well hilary did it why shouldnt trump be able to? well trump was supposed to be different remember? so far trump just seems like bush 3.0 he is turning into what trump supporters hated most. don't you feel at least a little lets see whats the expression i'm looking for oh yes "stabbed in the back"?


I'm not deflecting, I'm saying it has been a normal event with past Presidents and no one put an once of protest into it until Trump. So is it the act or is it just Trump people want to bitch about.

Stabbed in the back over what exactly? That he blew up some planes that have been doing some heinous acts on civilians...lol whatever...

This is not war, it was a one time event.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




This is not war, it was a one time event.


Whee.

It did crap. What's next?



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

I do believe your source is ignoring § 1542, which I quoted above, which requires consultation with Congress before engaging in hostilities.



You can quote all day and I can interpret all day with totally different views and both be correct under the law. If the law was so simple or black and white then the supreme court would rule the same 100% of the time but 5-4 is a hell of a lot more common than 9-0. It can also be debated that the War Power Act is unconstitutional too, so what is your point? The precedent has been set by past Presidents, just about everyone of them since WWII, and that precedent has been basically based on...


What they were doing was obviously in the US’s “national interest,” and the military action was strictly limited in time and scope (in other words, it wasn’t big enough to count as a real war, or even real hostilities)


Agree or disagree it doesn't matter, its already set in stone by past actions. Obama and Bush had close to 50 between the two of them as they abused the AUMF to justify their secret actions that didn't actually line up with the AUMF. Would you like me to list another 149?



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

It did crap. What's next?


What is next is a completely different debate. In this case I would imagine that Trump goes to Congress and asks to put 7000 - 10000 troops in Syria. It all really comes down to funding...congress funds wars, so the president can not really declare war without congress funding it?



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero



so what is your point?
My point is that you cited an interpretation of the law. An interpretation which ignores other aspects of that law. I quoted one of those aspects. There are more.

Do you think the president had any particular reason to not even notify Congress of his decision, while telling the Russians about what he was going to do?



Would you like me to list another 149?

Please.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

My point is that you cited an interpretation of the law. An interpretation which ignores other aspects of that law. I quoted one of those aspects. There are more.


It is not my interpretation of the law but actual past interpretation to justify similar actions. Isn't 99% of the law interpretation and precedent anyways. I think you are overlooking that... Do you think SC would rule 9-0 that what Trump did was against the law?



Do you think the president had any particular reason to not even notify Congress of his decision, while telling the Russians about what he was going to do?



I'm sure he did, speed and timing to name two, or we can debate it for 60 to 90 days in Congress...I'm not in his cabinet to actually give you an answer though. Outside of Ryan, This gain high approval from both sides.... kind of moot...



Please.


Well we can start with the war on the Indians, there is a few 100 battles that didn't have Congressional approval...

I know we live in a new technological age, but the true intent of all this was focused on sending troops into harms way. That has always been the fundamental reason and with 55,000 killed in Vietnam Congress said enough is enough and so the War Powers Act came into being. This is not about pot shots here and there it is about ordering our military into battle that will result in them dying.




edit on 13-4-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

So, based on what you've said so far ...

1. You believe that as long as past Presidents have done a thing, that justifies the current President doing that same thing?

2. You believe that what the Constitution actually says is less important than what you (or someone else) interprets it to mean in a modern context?



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
It's quite telling that Trump's approval rating is rising again now that he is firing missiles and dropping bombs weekly.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So, based on what you've said so far ...

1. You believe that as long as past Presidents have done a thing, that justifies the current President doing that same thing?


What thing? This isn't some broad brush here otherwise you will suggest that I believe that since one President screwed a woman with a cigar then it is OK for all...lol We are talking about what is within a Presidents power as commander and chief. This "thing" you speak of has been done all the way back to Washington, so yes this "thing" is within a President's power to do....



2. You believe that what the Constitution actually says is less important than what you (or someone else) interprets it to mean in a modern context?


The Constitution gives the Commander and Chief broad powers in this, it was the 1973 War Power Act that worked to limit that power, so if you want to go all Constitutional on me then the War Power Act is unconstitutional.


So in short you missed the mark with both statements...



edit on 13-4-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


1. Attacking the forces of another sovereign nation is an act of war. You can diddle all you like with semantics, but there are Constitutional and legal limits on any President's ability to wage war. For the record, most modern "acts of war" by American Presidents are illegal in the technical sense, just as Trump's strike on Syria is.

2. Actually, these are "the powers" that the Constitution gives the President from Article II:



Section 2. 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;

he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices,

and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them,

and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper;

he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers;

he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,

and shall commission all the officers of the United States.


Being the "Commander in Chief" does not mean (literally) that the President can do as he wishes (ignoring the fact for the moment that, Constitutionally speaking, we aren't even supposed to MAINTAIN a standing Army), because the Constitution established in Article I that the power to declare war rests with the Congress.

The War Powers Act is an expression of that power OF CONGRESS to initiate war (military actions against other sovereign states).

So actually, if anyone "missed the mark" here it is yourself unless you mean to argue to undermine the US Constitution.

/shrug



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Being the "Commander in Chief" does not mean (literally) that the President can do as he wishes (ignoring the fact for the moment that, Constitutionally speaking, we aren't even supposed to MAINTAIN a standing Army), because the Constitution established in Article I that the power to declare war rests with the Congress.

The War Powers Act is an expression of that power OF CONGRESS to initiate war (military actions against other sovereign states).

So actually, if anyone "missed the mark" here it is yourself unless you mean to argue to undermine the US Constitution.



Well then I guess we can say we been at war with Syria for years long before Trump unless you suggest Trump is the FIRST attack against Stria from the US.

I guess we need to determine if an act of war is anything we do, or is it a deceleration. As I have said we have not had an act of "War" since WWII, so once again is this a debate to protest the action, or is it just a protest against Trump no matter what he does. The power of congress is to fund the war and if they decide not to fund then there is no war. What we are debating has been the actions of Presidents all the way back to Washington, so as I said before to Phage, what is your point?
edit on 15-4-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Time to update xuenchen's excellent thread about Trump's stellar performance --- 'cause I know she'd want to keep us all informed of the facts. She's a stickler for facts, afterall...

Rasmussen has reported daily on Trump's approval rating (see the OP) and here are the latest...

Over 112 days, Trump's approval rating has been in positive numbers for 9.8% of that time. 11 whole days! 13.4% if you want to add-in the 4 days where is approval index was 0 (neither approve of disapprove). Over that time the average for those that 'Strongly Approve' is 33% and those that 'Strongly Disapprove' is 51%. Since inauguration he has lost 11% of those that 'Strongly Approve' of his performance and has found there are 10% more people that 'Strongly Disapprove' over that time.

Just wanted to help xuenchen out and keep us all 'in the know'.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join