Sleek-Jet
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 12,764
- Reaction score
- 15,484
Two things happened last week, one everyone is pretty much up to speed on. The other not so much I imagine.
The press has made much hay that the group that invaded the US Capital building were attempting a coup. Well, not really. They occupied some realestate. The US gov't was still intact. The congress can meet in other location besides two chamber in the capital building. The consitution doesn't provide that votes have to take place a ceartain lat/lon coordinates, it only provides that both houses have to agree if they are to meet outside of the capital (Article I, Section 5). And as we saw, both legislative bodies again convened later in the day and finished their business (for right or wrong, different thread). We all will ignore groups on the left actually attempting to seced from the United States, or trying to interuupt the business of the SCOTUS, at least the Justices lock the doors. One could argue that forming your own country isn't the same action as a coup, but the goal ceartainly is.
On Thursday the speaker of the house performed an action much closer to a coup de'tat then what the hooligans did a few day prior. It seems Pelosi phoned up the chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff and asked him to not follow any orders from the President. People smarter than me have not been able to find any clause in the basic law of this country that allows the legislative branch to interfere directly in the orders of the executive. In case anyone has forgotten, the President sits at the head of the Executive and is the top of the Chain of Command of the US armed forces. Otherwise known as the Commander-in-Chief. She then broadcast the action, posting a letter on her website. Until the President is impeached and convicted, resigns, is replaced by invoking the 25th ammendment, or lawfully replaced at inauguration, he still sits and commands the armed forces of the United States. The Congress' only power here are to declare war and direct appropriations, not authorise the defense of this country on a case-by-case basis.
So which act is more in line with taking over the governent? Which act weekens the standing of this country? Is it unreasonable to think adversaries aren't paying attention and make a move against US interests in the near term?
If Fancy Nancy wants to be in charge of the millitary, she can run for President and be elected (or somehow remove both the President and the VP). Bad decisions and actions by one party do not justify the same from the other, a point both sides should consider.
The press has made much hay that the group that invaded the US Capital building were attempting a coup. Well, not really. They occupied some realestate. The US gov't was still intact. The congress can meet in other location besides two chamber in the capital building. The consitution doesn't provide that votes have to take place a ceartain lat/lon coordinates, it only provides that both houses have to agree if they are to meet outside of the capital (Article I, Section 5). And as we saw, both legislative bodies again convened later in the day and finished their business (for right or wrong, different thread). We all will ignore groups on the left actually attempting to seced from the United States, or trying to interuupt the business of the SCOTUS, at least the Justices lock the doors. One could argue that forming your own country isn't the same action as a coup, but the goal ceartainly is.
On Thursday the speaker of the house performed an action much closer to a coup de'tat then what the hooligans did a few day prior. It seems Pelosi phoned up the chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff and asked him to not follow any orders from the President. People smarter than me have not been able to find any clause in the basic law of this country that allows the legislative branch to interfere directly in the orders of the executive. In case anyone has forgotten, the President sits at the head of the Executive and is the top of the Chain of Command of the US armed forces. Otherwise known as the Commander-in-Chief. She then broadcast the action, posting a letter on her website. Until the President is impeached and convicted, resigns, is replaced by invoking the 25th ammendment, or lawfully replaced at inauguration, he still sits and commands the armed forces of the United States. The Congress' only power here are to declare war and direct appropriations, not authorise the defense of this country on a case-by-case basis.
So which act is more in line with taking over the governent? Which act weekens the standing of this country? Is it unreasonable to think adversaries aren't paying attention and make a move against US interests in the near term?
If Fancy Nancy wants to be in charge of the millitary, she can run for President and be elected (or somehow remove both the President and the VP). Bad decisions and actions by one party do not justify the same from the other, a point both sides should consider.