Hagel called to testify on prisoner swap

[SlapLeather]

Its a little late now.  Every member of the intelligence, foreign relations and defense committees including the leadership of both Houses should have been told of this weeks ago.

The Regime says FU. What ya gonna' do about it?

[SPQR]

The Regime says FU. What ya gonna' do about it?

Troll

[Oceander]

Jack Goldsmith, a Bush administration veteran of the battles between the executive branch and Congress over Commander-in-Chief powers in the war against terrorists, says Obama may have been acting legally. On the website Lawfare Tuesday he wrote, “If the statute impinged on an exclusive presidential power, the president properly disregarded it and did not violate it.”

Even many of those who opposed the release in the past accept the president has the power in conflicts to effect a prisoner swap. “We have done prisoner swaps in the past,” says the first official familiar with the debate over the release. But, the official added, “That’s been in international armed conflict where you have a state with which you can negotiate and you can say this guy will not go back to the fight.”

clearly there's a constitutional powers conflict here - it's been around for a while and has come up in other contexts, although it's usually in the foreign affairs/war powers context I believe.

[Carling]

Troll

I don't think he was trolling.  It's a legitimate question.  No administration is this stupid.  They see the writing on the wall for this fall, and are seeing how far Americans will let them go.  If there is no real response to this calculated outrage, then who is going to stop Obama and his Marxists from fundamentally and suddenly changing this country to its core?

[Oceander]

The Regime says FU. What ya gonna' do about it?

Move to enforce the statute that was violated and let a court sort it out.  It'd get to the Supreme Court rather quickly I think.  I for one would be interested to see what the Roberts Court would do with a case like this, given the very incremental way the Court has handled a lot of other charged cases.

[Oceander]

I don't think he was trolling.  It's a legitimate question.  No administration is this stupid.  They see the writing on the wall for this fall, and are seeing how far Americans will let them go.  If there is no real response to this calculated outrage, then who is going to stop Obama and his Marxists from fundamentally and suddenly changing this country to its core?

I agree.

[SPQR]

I agree.

He just telling me FU? Is that proper for the decorum for a board?

[SlapLeather]

Troll

I am not a troll.

Anything that even gets close to a chink in Dear Leaders armor from here on out, will be deemed a Constitutional Crisis.

They are looking forward to a long hot summer.

[Carling]

Move to enforce the statute that was violated and let a court sort it out.  It'd get to the Supreme Court rather quickly I think.  I for one would be interested to see what the Roberts Court would do with a case like this, given the very incremental way the Court has handled a lot of other charged cases.

The smart way to expedite this is to have one or more of the families who had brave men die while looking for this deserter file the case in a friendly federal court, and have as much media as you can get to cover it.  The major networks would ignore it, but social media won't let it be ignored, and the MSM will have to follow suit to be at all credible.  Much as what happened to Bergdahl.  He went from what most Americans thought was a hero to a deserter (at best) in a matter of 2 days, and that's all due to social media being able to spread the word of those who served with him, and knew the story firsthand.  This is RatherGate on steroids, as far as what it could mean to the Obama presidency. 

[Oceander]

He just telling me FU? Is that proper for a board

I think you may have misinterpreted what he said/wrote.  He wasn't telling you to FU, he was characterizing - I think - in earthy terms what the administration is essentially doing:  telling Congress and the country at large to shut up and deal with it because they - the administration - aren't going to listen to anyone anyways.

[Oceander]

The smart way to expedite this is to have one or more of the families who had brave men die while looking for this deserter file the case in a friendly federal court, and have as much media as you can get to cover it.  The major networks would ignore it, but social media won't let it be ignored, and the MSM will have to follow suit to be at all credible.  Much as what happened to Bergdahl.  He went from what most Americans thought was a hero to a deserter (at best) in a matter of 2 days, and that's all due to social media being able to spread the word of those who served with him, and knew the story firsthand.  This is RatherGate on steroids, as far as what it could mean to the Obama presidency. 

Except that I don't think those folks would have standing to sue under the statute Obama apparently violated.

[Carling]

He just telling me FU? Is that proper for the decorum for a board?

He posted that the regime says FU.  I agree, that's what the administration is doing to us all right now.  I think you read it wrong.

[SPQR]

I think you may have misinterpreted what he said/wrote.  He wasn't telling you to FU, he was characterizing - I think - in earthy terms what the administration is essentially doing:  telling Congress and the country at large to shut up and deal with it because they - the administration - aren't going to listen to anyone anyways.

I'll let it slide

[SPQR]

He posted that the regime says FU.  I agree, that's what the administration is doing to us all right now.  I think you read it wrong.

I'll let it slide

[Carling]

Except that I don't think those folks would have standing to sue under the statute Obama apparently violated.

There must be some sort of civil suit that can be filed.  What are the other options?

[Oceander]

There must be some sort of civil suit that can be filed.  What are the other options?

A member of Congress who was supposed to have been informed could sue; I would think that, e.g., Feinstein, would have standing to sue.

[Carling]

A member of Congress who was supposed to have been informed could sue; I would think that, e.g., Feinstein, would have standing to sue.

Feinstein isn't going to file a suit, and if a GOP member of congress does, it makes it 100% political.  As of now, public sentiment is against Obama because the service members who served with this POS are the ones making claims against him.  I posted in another thread how the AP is already trying to make it political with their language, but no one here commented on that thread.

[SPQR]

There must be some sort of civil suit that can be filed.  What are the other options?

There are no other point. Once the House votes to compels you testify there is no way around. She can ignore it or go to jail.Look at Lois Lerner. You can't ignore a judicial or Congressional inquiry. Basically they can do anything they want.

[SPQR]

There are no other point. Once the House votes to compels you testify there is no way around. She can ignore it or go to jail.Look at Lois Lerner. You can't ignore a judicial or Congressional inquiry. Basically they can do anything they want.

She can take the 5th amendment. Which would not it be a smart idea. It make her looking like she is hiding something

[Oceander]

Feinstein isn't going to file a suit, and if a GOP member of congress does, it makes it 100% political.  As of now, public sentiment is against Obama because the service members who served with this POS are the ones making claims against him.  I posted in another thread how the AP is already trying to make it political with their language, but no one here commented on that thread.

Which is why this is what the courts call a "political question" not a matter of law.

[Oceander]

There are no other point. Once the House votes to compels you testify there is no way around. She can ignore it or go to jail.Look at Lois Lerner. You can't ignore a judicial or Congressional inquiry. Basically they can do anything they want.

There is always the matter of privilege, and in this case matters of national security could very well support a finding of privilege.

[SPQR]

There is always the matter of privilege, and in this case matters of national security could very well support a finding of privilege.

A major Constitutional check on the executive branch in Washington, D.C. is congressional oversight: the power to investigate and oversee the executive branch, usually carried out by congressional committees.

The Senate plays a particularly important role in checking the power of the executive branch because it has the power to confirm Cabinet officials, judges, and other high officials — a form of leverage that senators often exploit until they get what they want from the President

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_three_methods_that_congress_uses_to_oversee_the_executive_branch

[SPQR]

A major Constitutional check on the executive branch in Washington, D.C. is congressional oversight: the power to investigate and oversee the executive branch, usually carried out by congressional committees

Powers
 Article I of the Constitution sets forth most of the powers of Congress, which include numerous explicit powers enumerated in Section 8. Constitutional amendments have granted Congress additional powers. Congress also has implied powers derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution.

 Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumurated power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. (power of the purse) The Sixteenth Amendment extended power of taxation to include income taxes.[7] The Constitution also gives Congress power over appropriating funds, with all government spending required to be included in congressional appropriations. This power is an important way for Congress to keep the executive branch in check.[7] Other powers granted to Congress include the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, and coin money.

 The Constitution also gives Congress an important role in national defense, including the exclusive power to declare war, to raise and maintain the armed forces, and to make rules for the military. Congress also has the power to establish post offices and post roads, issue patents and copyrights, fix standards of weights and measures, establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Congress also has the power to admit new states to the Union (Article Four).

 One of the foremost non-legislative functions of the Congress is the power to investigate and to oversee the executive branch. This is called congressional oversight. This power is usually delegated to United States congressional committees—standing committee, select and special committee, select committees, or joint committee composed of members of both houses. Congress also has the exclusive power of removal, allowing impeachment and removal of the President.~

This is another method:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090204154843AAOcF1e

Congress has powers over the Executive Branch.Imperial Presidency is a term used to describe the modern presidency of the United States. It became popular in the 1960s and served as the title of a 1973 volume by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who wrote The Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the US Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the constitutional limits

[SlapLeather]

Just an FYI...

Feds Collaborate With Wikipedia Editors to Improve 'Wikipedia Entries Related to Government Publications'

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feds-collaborate-wikipedia-editors-improve-wikipedia-entries-related-government-publications_794261.html

[SPQR]

He posted that the regime says FU. 

It is just my religion forbids the use of that type of language.