|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 06 2017 01:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Then why didn't the WH say this from the start? Seems like another lie to cover up the shit storm that is getting worse by the week?
But what kinda shitty optics would the Trump administration be avoiding? Him not being on the NSC isn't that big a deal as long as he's still one of the top dogs. If there is some damning thing that makes him need to resign from NSC, wouldn't he also need to resign from other very important things?
I think this is just Mcmaster being like "Fuck Steve Bannon. Either he is gone or I am gone". And Trump's circle saying removing Bannon from NSC makes most sense for preventing infighting.
|
On April 06 2017 01:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:
That is all they do. The “create new law” is when they create legal reasoning for denying the law based on constitutional guidelines or within written law. They don’t make new law whole cloth. The SCOTUS does not pass legislation like Congress does, this is true, but it does de facto create new laws by introducing innovations into the legal system like Miranda rights or the Dred Scott decision. On April 06 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote:No, the judiciary system should not create new laws, they should only rule on exisiting laws. Your society needs to create it's own social contract, of course with input of the judiciary branch. Effectively, you need to make a vote to abolish (parts of) the constitution in favor of a new one. Then you find a consensus for your values and put them into law even though they may collide with the old system. That's of course hard and i don't know if that was ever done without a serious break of society. That said, i don't know any country except for the States that has been without a change of government form in the last 100 years, maybe Great Britain? Not very knowledgeable how their "Constitutional Monarchy" reformed itself. If you are lucky, Trump starts a public vote for Royalty, wins, abolishes the constitution to become King of America and when the American Revolution starts, you can create a new document  Britain doesn't have a constitution. There is a strong argument to be made that Britain's unwritten constitution is what got them into World War I. every court ruling on a set of unique facts (by virtue of being singular) in some sense creates "new law". let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that any constitution can be a "contract" that anticipates all contigencies. justice is the only social contract that judges should ultimately appeal to.
There is no universally agreed definition of "justice", nor a scientific way to guarantee it in all circumstances. If there was, everybody would clamor for enlightened despotism.
I say again that the judiciary's role (as envisioned by the Founding Fathers) is only to nullify legislation/executive acts that it deems to be unconstitutional, similar to the veto power that the President of Germany has. It's true that the SCOTUS has invented many good things by having more power to do so, but that's the thing about absolute power; if you applaud it for when it's well-used, you also leave no checks for when it's abused. SCOTUS Justices are life-time appointees and the only check on their power is impeachment or constitutional amendment.
On April 06 2017 01:16 Plansix wrote:
Dred Scott lead to the 14th amendment, which I consider a net gain. It is a clear case of the legislature hoping the court will resolve a problem for them and it backfiring in spectacular fashion.
Sorry, what exactly is your argument here? That terrible SCOTUS decisions are good because they lead to good Constitutional amendments?
|
United States42024 Posts
On April 06 2017 01:37 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 01:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:
That is all they do. The “create new law” is when they create legal reasoning for denying the law based on constitutional guidelines or within written law. They don’t make new law whole cloth. The SCOTUS does not pass legislation like Congress does, this is true, but it does de facto create new laws by introducing innovations into the legal system like Miranda rights or the Dred Scott decision. On April 06 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote:No, the judiciary system should not create new laws, they should only rule on exisiting laws. Your society needs to create it's own social contract, of course with input of the judiciary branch. Effectively, you need to make a vote to abolish (parts of) the constitution in favor of a new one. Then you find a consensus for your values and put them into law even though they may collide with the old system. That's of course hard and i don't know if that was ever done without a serious break of society. That said, i don't know any country except for the States that has been without a change of government form in the last 100 years, maybe Great Britain? Not very knowledgeable how their "Constitutional Monarchy" reformed itself. If you are lucky, Trump starts a public vote for Royalty, wins, abolishes the constitution to become King of America and when the American Revolution starts, you can create a new document Britain doesn't have a constitution. There is a strong argument to be made that Britain's unwritten constitution is what got them into World War I. Bullshit. WWI was an inevitable consequence of the inability of the imperial system to accept the German superpower. The 18th Century powers divided the world between them. Then suddenly Germany appears as a superpower with industrial capacity and population that exceed that of the existing powers. The existing powers won't concede their position without war and Germany won't be relegated to an inferior status when it was quite clearly the dominant power in Europe. And so the only way Germany can realize its destiny as the premier European power is through a general European reset at the expense of the existing powers and the only way that can be done is through war. Recent historiography has come down pretty heavily on the side that everyone wanted to avoid WWI except Germany and that everyone made a good faith effort to avoid it except Germany and that it would have easily been avoided if Germany had made even the slightest effort to do so. But Germany could never be a global power without conflict with Britain and France, and she knew it, and therefore deliberately sought to push the continent into war. Did you read the article I linked, KwarK? It has pretty solid evidence that the government saw the invasion of Belgium as a convenient excuse to avert a civil war over the Home Rule Bill.
It's wrong. Britain made multiple attempts to defuse the crisis which were deliberately ignored by Germany who pushed for a wider war as a matter of policy. Had Russia not stood with Serbia and Serbia been absorbed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire the German Empire would still have invaded France. It was never about Serbia, it was about Africa, India and China. The cause of the war was, quite simply, that Germany had a deliberate policy of seeking war with France and Britain. That's what it comes down to.
|
I wouldn't be surprised if Bannon was removed from the NSC for the stated reasons. Trump's MO when people fall out of his favor is to fire them. When someone's out of Trump's circle, they're really out. It could be that this is a prelude to Trump getting rid of Bannon entirely somewhere down the line, but I doubt it at this point.
If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes.
|
On April 06 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:37 LightSpectra wrote:On April 06 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 01:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:
That is all they do. The “create new law” is when they create legal reasoning for denying the law based on constitutional guidelines or within written law. They don’t make new law whole cloth. The SCOTUS does not pass legislation like Congress does, this is true, but it does de facto create new laws by introducing innovations into the legal system like Miranda rights or the Dred Scott decision. On April 06 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote:No, the judiciary system should not create new laws, they should only rule on exisiting laws. Your society needs to create it's own social contract, of course with input of the judiciary branch. Effectively, you need to make a vote to abolish (parts of) the constitution in favor of a new one. Then you find a consensus for your values and put them into law even though they may collide with the old system. That's of course hard and i don't know if that was ever done without a serious break of society. That said, i don't know any country except for the States that has been without a change of government form in the last 100 years, maybe Great Britain? Not very knowledgeable how their "Constitutional Monarchy" reformed itself. If you are lucky, Trump starts a public vote for Royalty, wins, abolishes the constitution to become King of America and when the American Revolution starts, you can create a new document Britain doesn't have a constitution. There is a strong argument to be made that Britain's unwritten constitution is what got them into World War I. Bullshit. WWI was an inevitable consequence of the inability of the imperial system to accept the German superpower. The 18th Century powers divided the world between them. Then suddenly Germany appears as a superpower with industrial capacity and population that exceed that of the existing powers. The existing powers won't concede their position without war and Germany won't be relegated to an inferior status when it was quite clearly the dominant power in Europe. And so the only way Germany can realize its destiny as the premier European power is through a general European reset at the expense of the existing powers and the only way that can be done is through war. Recent historiography has come down pretty heavily on the side that everyone wanted to avoid WWI except Germany and that everyone made a good faith effort to avoid it except Germany and that it would have easily been avoided if Germany had made even the slightest effort to do so. But Germany could never be a global power without conflict with Britain and France, and she knew it, and therefore deliberately sought to push the continent into war. Did you read the article I linked, KwarK? It has pretty solid evidence that the government saw the invasion of Belgium as a convenient excuse to avert a civil war over the Home Rule Bill. It's wrong. Britain made multiple attempts to defuse the crisis which were deliberately ignored by Germany who pushed for a wider war as a matter of policy. Had Russia not stood with Serbia and Serbia been absorbed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire the German Empire would still have invaded France. It was never about Serbia, it was about Africa, India and China. The cause of the war was, quite simply, that Germany had a deliberate policy of seeking war with France and Britain. That's what it comes down to.
You've completely ignored the article and repeated your own assertions (which are not strictly contradictory with the article's thesis, by the way). If you're not going to bother even taking a peak to see what it's about then I'm not going to waste my time by responding.
|
On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes.
My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
This is about the time that we pretty much have to take care of NK. Any later and they will probably have ICBMs that the US has no means to defend against. And it's a rogue nation that can't be trusted to secure them.
|
On April 06 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes. My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die.
That's been my operational assumption until recently. The Trump administration has been beating the war drums fairly heavily over North Korea over the past month. I still don't think that they'll do it, but I can't dismiss it as a possibility.
|
On April 06 2017 01:47 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:40 IgnE wrote:On April 06 2017 01:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:
That is all they do. The “create new law” is when they create legal reasoning for denying the law based on constitutional guidelines or within written law. They don’t make new law whole cloth. The SCOTUS does not pass legislation like Congress does, this is true, but it does de facto create new laws by introducing innovations into the legal system like Miranda rights or the Dred Scott decision. On April 06 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote:No, the judiciary system should not create new laws, they should only rule on exisiting laws. Your society needs to create it's own social contract, of course with input of the judiciary branch. Effectively, you need to make a vote to abolish (parts of) the constitution in favor of a new one. Then you find a consensus for your values and put them into law even though they may collide with the old system. That's of course hard and i don't know if that was ever done without a serious break of society. That said, i don't know any country except for the States that has been without a change of government form in the last 100 years, maybe Great Britain? Not very knowledgeable how their "Constitutional Monarchy" reformed itself. If you are lucky, Trump starts a public vote for Royalty, wins, abolishes the constitution to become King of America and when the American Revolution starts, you can create a new document Britain doesn't have a constitution. There is a strong argument to be made that Britain's unwritten constitution is what got them into World War I. every court ruling on a set of unique facts (by virtue of being singular) in some sense creates "new law". let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that any constitution can be a "contract" that anticipates all contigencies. justice is the only social contract that judges should ultimately appeal to. There is no universally agreed definition of "justice", nor a scientific way to guarantee it in all circumstances. If there was, everybody would clamor for enlightened despotism. I say again that the judiciary's role (as envisioned by the Founding Fathers) is only to nullify legislation/executive acts that it deems to be unconstitutional, similar to the veto power that the President of Germany has. It's true that the SCOTUS has invented many good things by having more power to do so, but that's the thing about absolute power; if you applaud it for when it's well-used, you also leave no checks for when it's abused. SCOTUS Justices are life-time appointees and the only check on their power is impeachment or constitutional amendment. Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:16 Plansix wrote:
Dred Scott lead to the 14th amendment, which I consider a net gain. It is a clear case of the legislature hoping the court will resolve a problem for them and it backfiring in spectacular fashion. Sorry, what exactly is your argument here? That terrible SCOTUS decisions are good because they lead to good Constitutional amendments?
The political reality meant that the court was never going to solve the problem of slavery. We were going to war over it no matter what. The rulings was terrible, but Constitution specifically says that blacks are 3/5 of a person.
There is no perfect system. Limiting the court makes other branches more powerful. The court cannot keep the legislature in check if they are limited to simply striking down laws without written decisions. It is the legal reasoning behind their rulings that “creates law” and you can’t remove that and have law function. What you seek requires that we completely rework our legal system and the concept of legal precedent.
|
On April 06 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
This is about the time that we pretty much have to take care of NK. Any later and they will probably have ICBMs that the US has no means to defend against. And it's a rogue nation that can't be trusted to secure them.
The US has a military agency specifically devoted to defense against ballistic missiles, and has interceptors ready to be deployed in California and Alaska.
|
On April 06 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes. My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die.
Well there's the ones where we kill all of the North Koreans (civilians included) in one swoop.
|
On April 06 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
This is about the time that we pretty much have to take care of NK. Any later and they will probably have ICBMs that the US has no means to defend against. And it's a rogue nation that can't be trusted to secure them.
One of the dumbest fucking things ever said. NK already has Nukes meaning tens of millions will be dead at the very outset of a War or even an attack, South Korea will be wiped out even Japan. Let's not even start with China's reaction to such an approach.
|
On April 06 2017 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes. My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die. Well there's the ones where we kill all of the North Koreans (civilians included) in one swoop.
Yeah. One does not simply "take out" an entire nation without glassing it. Even one as dysfunctional as NK.
|
Nobody's nuking North Korea unless both China and South Korea give the OK for it, and I don't see that happening.
|
Frankly, I'm not sure that the US would win a war with North Korea. I don't think that the US would be willing to spend the blood and resources necessary to win.
|
On April 06 2017 02:04 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
This is about the time that we pretty much have to take care of NK. Any later and they will probably have ICBMs that the US has no means to defend against. And it's a rogue nation that can't be trusted to secure them. The US has a military agency specifically devoted to defense against ballistic missiles, and has interceptors ready to be deployed in California and Alaska.
Last I read, didn't those have a 70% success rating in perfect conditions?
|
On April 06 2017 02:07 LightSpectra wrote:
Nobody's nuking North Korea unless both China and South Korea give the OK for it, and I don't see that happening.
Would it be possible to nuke NK without irradiating South Korea?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 06 2017 02:04 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
This is about the time that we pretty much have to take care of NK. Any later and they will probably have ICBMs that the US has no means to defend against. And it's a rogue nation that can't be trusted to secure them. The US has a military agency specifically devoted to defense against ballistic missiles, and has interceptors ready to be deployed in California and Alaska.
They... don't work, to put it lightly. It's a shitty failed project.
|
On April 06 2017 02:07 LightSpectra wrote:
Nobody's nuking North Korea unless both China and South Korea give the OK for it, and I don't see that happening.
Pretty sure we need Japan to sign off on that too. And no one is dumb enough to even ask. There are no solutions to NK that don't involve massive casualties.
|
On April 06 2017 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes. My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die. Well there's the ones where we kill all of the North Koreans (civilians included) in one swoop.
I thought NK had a bunch of artillery in mountains that are essentially unreachable. My understanding is that even if the US was to wipe out the entirety of NK, it would be less than instantaneous and that NK would have enough time to kill a few million in Seoul on their way out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
