- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
ff topic:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/03/trump-bunker-george-floyd-protests
President Trump Discussions- merged thread
- Thread starter jacksparrow
- Start date
- Status
ff topic:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/03/trump-bunker-george-floyd-protests
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
What, you mean he couldn't override as the Comd in Chief and say hell naw?
Chauvin in his orange jump suit
- Staff edit to meet forum rules
Chauvin in his orange jump suit
Tcm621 said:
- Staff edit to meet forum rules
- Reaction score
- 87
- Points
- 530
jacksparrow said:What, you mean he couldn't override as the Comd in Chief and say hell naw?
Chauvin in his orange jump suit
No. He couldn't. The job of the secret service protection detail is to protect the life of the POTUS, whether he likes it or not. They are not Donald Trump's bodyguards, they are the President's.The mugshot is a bit of a non sequitur, no?
- Staff edit of quote to meet forum rules
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 389
- Points
- 880
Haggis said:
Luckily they entrusted the movie Preaident’s life to a Scotsman with great abs
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 43
- Points
- 530
He had to. The live takes for a Downfall video have to be shot before the final crash, not after.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Ahahahaha...Channing Tatum is NOT a Scot in the White House Down. I think you're getting it mixed up with Angel Has Fallen (Gerard Butler). LOL :rofl:
daftandbarmy said:Luckily they entrusted the movie Preaident’s life to a Scotsman with great abs
FJAG
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 149
- Points
- 680
jacksparrow said:
Ah. Would that be "Olympus Has Fallen"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Has_Fallen
S
stellarpanther
Guest
Military Advisors kept options from Trump:
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/510990-trump-advisers-were-wary-of-talking-military-options-over-fears-hed
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/510990-trump-advisers-were-wary-of-talking-military-options-over-fears-hed
The Hill:
A strike by Iran that most likely was deliberate and precise. A more damaging hit by Iran would have likely done it for a war on Iran. Which begs the question on how much did Trump have to do with the hit on Suleimaini? Likely very little IMHO.
Great topic for discussion here!
A strike by Iran that most likely was deliberate and precise. A more damaging hit by Iran would have likely done it for a war on Iran. Which begs the question on how much did Trump have to do with the hit on Suleimaini? Likely very little IMHO.
Great topic for discussion here!
Donald H said:
It seems likely to me that such a strike wouldn’t be launched without a thumbs up from the president. I imagine that probably he had given direction to seek an opportunity to spank Iran in a surgical way that would send a message, and they came back with that strike as an option, seeking his assent. The president (any president) would likely not have the knowledge or expertise to really have much to do with target selection; that’s pretty in the weeds, even if a particular target is an important one. He would have probably been offered one or more options to approve or choose from.
shawn5o
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 230
Drafting women into military service? I thought it was a done deal
Federal appeals court: Male-only draft is constitutional
By KEVIN McGILLAugust 13, 2020
https://apnews.com/6240679fed466f36679b7492d015cf0c
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal appeals court in New Orleans upheld the constitutionality of the all-male military draft system Thursday, citing a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
In a decision that overturned a 2019 ruling by a Texas-based federal judge, a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said “only the Supreme Court may revise its precedent.”
The case was argued in March and was the result of a lawsuit by the National Coalition for Men and two men challenging the male-only draft. They argued that the 1981 case was decided at a time when women were largely absent from combat.
Thursday’s unanimous ruling from the three-judge panel acknowledged that “the factual underpinning of the controlling Supreme Court decision has changed. However, the judges noted, “that does not grant a court of appeals license to disregard or overrule that precedent.”
Plaintiffs in the case could seek a rehearing before the full 17-judge appeals court or go to the Supreme Court. Harry Crouch, president of the National Coalition for Men, said organization leaders will discuss their next move with attorneys. “All I can tell you is we will be moving the case forward,” he said.
The U.S. government stopped drafting young men into the military in 1973. But every male must still register for the draft when he turns 18.
Earlier this year — after the arguments before the 5th Circuit — a federal commission recommended including women in the military draft system.
“The Commission concluded that the time is right to extend Selective Service System registration to include men and women, between the ages of 18 and 26. This is a necessary and fair step, making it possible to draw on the talent of a unified Nation in a time of national emergency,” the commission’s final report said.
The 2019 district court decision declaring the male-only draft unconstitutional had been appealed by the Selective Service System, the federal agency that administers the draft. The appeal was argued during a series of 5th Circuit hearings at Tulane University. The judges were Carl Stewart, Don Willett and Jacques Weiner.
Arguing for the National Coalition for men was Marc Angelucci, an attorney who was shot to death in July. Authorities later linked the killing of Angelucci in California to Roy Den Hollander, 72, who was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on July 20, the day after an ambush shooting in New Jersey that killed U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’ 20-year-old son and wounded her husband.
Federal appeals court: Male-only draft is constitutional
By KEVIN McGILLAugust 13, 2020
https://apnews.com/6240679fed466f36679b7492d015cf0c
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal appeals court in New Orleans upheld the constitutionality of the all-male military draft system Thursday, citing a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
In a decision that overturned a 2019 ruling by a Texas-based federal judge, a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said “only the Supreme Court may revise its precedent.”
The case was argued in March and was the result of a lawsuit by the National Coalition for Men and two men challenging the male-only draft. They argued that the 1981 case was decided at a time when women were largely absent from combat.
Thursday’s unanimous ruling from the three-judge panel acknowledged that “the factual underpinning of the controlling Supreme Court decision has changed. However, the judges noted, “that does not grant a court of appeals license to disregard or overrule that precedent.”
Plaintiffs in the case could seek a rehearing before the full 17-judge appeals court or go to the Supreme Court. Harry Crouch, president of the National Coalition for Men, said organization leaders will discuss their next move with attorneys. “All I can tell you is we will be moving the case forward,” he said.
The U.S. government stopped drafting young men into the military in 1973. But every male must still register for the draft when he turns 18.
Earlier this year — after the arguments before the 5th Circuit — a federal commission recommended including women in the military draft system.
“The Commission concluded that the time is right to extend Selective Service System registration to include men and women, between the ages of 18 and 26. This is a necessary and fair step, making it possible to draw on the talent of a unified Nation in a time of national emergency,” the commission’s final report said.
The 2019 district court decision declaring the male-only draft unconstitutional had been appealed by the Selective Service System, the federal agency that administers the draft. The appeal was argued during a series of 5th Circuit hearings at Tulane University. The judges were Carl Stewart, Don Willett and Jacques Weiner.
Arguing for the National Coalition for men was Marc Angelucci, an attorney who was shot to death in July. Authorities later linked the killing of Angelucci in California to Roy Den Hollander, 72, who was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on July 20, the day after an ambush shooting in New Jersey that killed U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’ 20-year-old son and wounded her husband.
shawn5o said:
It probably doesn't have to be said, given Canada's past negative experiences with conscription, but men-only peacetime conscription simply could not happen anytime in the future in Canada. It would be a clear violation of section 15 of the Charter. Men-only wartime conscription, on the other hand, could be passed by Parliament, for five years at a time, under the notwithstanding clause.
In theory, the US doesn't have such a notwithstanding clause written into their constitution, but in practice their Supreme Court tends to allow things in wartime for short periods (as seen in the US Civil War, WWI, WII) that wouldn't pass muster as permanent peacetime practices. Even should the US Supreme Court rule that the peacetime Selective Service Act has to also register women, that wouldn't necessarily bind a future wartime US Government to actually conscript them.
Ostrozac said:
It wouldn't be that clean. While S.15 can be 'notwithstood', Parliament built an explicit protection of sex into the Charter in S.28. That section cannot be notwithstood.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms said:
So- while Parliament can invoke the Notwithstanding clause on S.2 and Ss.7-15 for the purpose of any legislation, that option is *not* open to it where there would be discrimination in violation of S.28. If there were a male only draft, that would be a prima facie violation of S.7, the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Because the Notwithstanding Clause could not apply in this particular case, male only draft legislation would have to be able to withstand Charter challenge by somehow passing the Oakes test that applies S.1's 'reasonable limitations'. I can't see that happening.
- Status
