jas007

It's happening all over the developed world. Either people can't afford kids or they don't want them for whatever reason. Sooner or later, that's not good. As for Russia? Kill enough young men in a war and the problem is obvious. But from what I see here in Wongamat Beach, which always seems to have a lot of Russians on vacation, they like kids. Most of the women seem to have kids and everyone is having a good time.

You really don't get it, do you? He's the President. He was elected by "the people." He's doing his job. It's not a hard concept to understand. He may be right. He may be wrong. But he's doing his job. Yes, there is a constitution. Yes, there are courts. And when this issue is finally adjudicated in the courts, I'm fairly comfortable in stating that the US Supreme Court will allow the duky elected President some leeway in conducting US foreign policy. The alternative would be chaos. Neuter the US President's ability to conduct foreign policy? Really? Is it strictly a matter of foreign policy? No. But you can't say there are no foreign policy issues. And that's the problem. Where will the court draw the line? You can bet they'll have a decision and that decision will not be to allow chaos. In any event, what's your solution? I have yet to hear that from you, other than some nonsense abbot "the people" and the "constitution." "The people" spoke when they elected President Trump, and, under the constitution, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling. Let's see what happens. Take a step back. Look at the big picture. Do you think the president should have no say in matters of foreign policy? Leave it all to any number of federal judges? Imagine the President getting a phone call in the middle of the night about a pressing issue. What's he supposed to do? Canvas all federal judges? Consult "the people"? Or is he supposed to do something then and there? Where do you draw the line? Write us a decision that addresses the issues. I'll wait. And always remember, there's more than one way to skin a cat. If the court says the Alien Enemies Act does not apply, do you really think the Trump team won't take a different approach?

Leonard Cohen

Terry Reid Anyone who hasn't heard this album, Superlungs, should take the time to listen. Some good stuff.

I can remember when this album came out. This isn't the song that sticks in my mind, but that's OK. Late 60S, early 70s. Like yesterday.

Kamala Harris? Someone's idea of a joke for Trump's 100th day in office? The woman wasn't even allowed to hold a news conference without cue cards, and even that she screwed up. Just imagine what a tragedy that would havre been. President of the United States. Someone who was seemingly incapable of even conversing with the press.

Cheap shot. You're responding to a reply I made to someone else. Try again. I'm not "playing games." Just trying to shed some light on the situation for the mentally challenged. "Get Trump." Really? is that your mindset? Leave it alone for now. And come back later after you realize that "Get trump" is not a winning strategy. The issues are bigger than that. I can wait.

Ok. Think what you want. There's a foreign policy angle, at least according to Trump, and you'd be hard pressed to say that's a fantasy. Trump is the President. Remember? He's trying to do his job. Or is he not entitled to do just that? He sees foreign invaders. He sees alien enemies. And there's a law on the books. I don't claim to be Perry Mason, and I don't know how this will turn out. But I'm comfortable in saying this: the US Supreme Court will resolve the issue, and you can bet that they won't obliterate the ability of the US President to conduct foreign policy. If the court is doing its job, they'll take a step back and look at the big picture. And the big picture is not "Get Trump." The big picture will be focused on question of whether a US President can conduct foreign policy, or whether that policy can be neutered any time someone finds a federal judge who has a political agenda. It's not rocket science, it's common sense. Why not let this run its course? See if I'm not right. Maybe I'm naive, but I think the court will do the right thing.

As I said, the matter is not settled. What part of that do you not understand? I'm sure the ruling says whatever it says. So what? That's not the last word. People who do not understand how the judicial system functions should probably go do something else. Watch a movie. Play a video game.

Off the top of my head, my guess is that you don't understand the nature of a temporary injunction or why such an order would be issued. And yes, what the court did was not out of line with what anyone would expect, including me. Go do your homework and come back when you understand why that is so. You keep getting in over your head on topics you don't really understand.

Once again, Trump is the President and he seems to think so. And it's Trump that has the constitutional duty to conduct foreign policy. So, what's the outcome? "Sorry Trump, these pekoe are just picking vegetables or delivering meals." "You no longer have a say in foreign policy matters." I don't tho that's the outcome. Like it or not , the issue is not clear cut. It may be a domestic issue, but it's hard to deny that there's not a foreign policy element. I think the court will take a step back, consider the big picture, and conclude that Trump has acted within the scope of his constitutional authority. He's the President.

I think a good place to start would be to buy one. A real short wave radio. You don'e need any kind of license to buy and listen to one, and they're kind of neat. You can listen to broadcasts from all over the world. I remember back in 1964. I wasn't very old, but my mom was visiting my grandparents, and my grandfather had a short wave radio. He worked on radars back in WWII and had all sorts of electronic equipment. Anyway, I was up early one morning and I was playing with the short wave radio. And that's when I heard about the big earthquake in Alaska. Before it was on any kind of news channel, I knew all about it, thanks to the short wave. I've been meaning to buy a portable short wave radio, but I need to do my research first.

Of course, but, as I've said, the world doesn't seem to work that way.

I understand, that will be the argument. But in Trump's mind and in reality, it can be considered to have a foreign policy connection. Millions of military age men, all invaded the country. Mostly men. Not women and children seeking legitimate asylum. And so Trump sees it as a foreign policy issue with real foreign enemies. Maybe there's no official "war" and no official foreign enemies, but in Trump's mind, it's a de facto war. Will the court finally decide that Trump is out of line and that it's all simply a domestic imigration issue and not a matter of foreign policy? I don't think so. It may be a little of both, but on balance, I think Trump gets a pass.

Right now, Finland is not a focus for Russia. And for what it's worth, Finland probably knows better than to allow missiles to be installed on its territory. Like it or not, they're probably neutral territory.

Of course, pretty much every territorial nation state on Planet Earth was established by way of force. You might be able to find one or two that weren't, but that's not the way the world works.

I wasn't aware that I quoted any article about anything. As for what's a "done deal"? It's a done deal until it isn't. You realize that, right? As for my "panties" being in a bunch? Actually, I don't spend much time thinking about any of this. It's something I can't control, and for me personally, it doesn't much matter. I'm just making casual observations. What I do know is that the Supreme Court, if they take the case, will likely be thinking about the bigger picture. Something more than "Get Trump." Does the President have a duty to conduct foreign policy? What kind of latitude does he have? Or can he be second guessed by federal judges, wherever they may be? My guess: the President gets a pass. He's doing his job. On balance, that's the constitutional setup.

Doubt all you want, I don't really care. And, I'm well aware of how the system works. I know all about the different levels of the judiciary and how it works. That's pretty basic stuff. I also know that eventually, the Supreme Court will take the case and make a decision. And if they do take the case, I seriously doubt they will decide that the President of the United States doesn't have a lot of leeway in conducting US foreign policy. Could they decide that the Alien Enemies Act doesn't apply in this contest? Perhaps. But then what? Throw the country into turmoil? Fifteen million illegal aliens in the USA and each and every one of those people is entitled to a due process hearing with full appeal rights? Imagine how silly that is. I think you must mean well, but you really don't understand the issues.

I'm not Ukrainian. I've never lived in Ukraine. I've never even visited Ukraine. But I'm pretty sure Russia could overrun the entire country if that's what they wanted to do. But they don't. To think they do is silly. Nor do they want to continue on and re-establish the old Soviet Union or occupy all of Europe. The old Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to hold it all together. They won't try that again. As I understand it, Russia's primary concern is to establish a situation whereby they have a neutral buffer zone with no possibility of NATO missiles and no possibility of any other kind of foreign missiles on the Russian border. Putin has been saying that for years. And it makes sense. Short and intermediate range missiles give their enemy an advantage, as parts of Russia's strategic defense systems would be compromised. So that's one of their objectives. In addition, they want a "de-Nazification" of Ukraine. I guess they've had enough of those people over the years. They still remember Hitler. They won't let that happen again. Makes sense to me. And they want the international community to recognize the fact that parts of what used to be Ukraine are now Russian. Reality. Ukraine won't get that territory back. Give them that, stop the war, and stop the killing. That's the best Ukraine can expect, I'm afraid. Or do you think we should have to have WW III because Russia won and the world isn't fair?

The Supreme Court is the law. Fixed it for you.

I have a law degree. I've worked for the Justice Department. And you?

Until the Supreme Court puts a stop to the nonsense.

Sure, so long as you want to pretend Article II of the US Constitution doesn't exist. This isn't simply a separation of powers issue. We all know how that works, or we should. Marbury v. Madison. Perhaps you don't? You imply the judiciary is an "equal power." Yes and no. By design, the power is there for the courts to rule on the law. But don't forget where that power came from. That power is derived from the US Constitution, which also, in the case of foreign policy, gives the President to power to conduct such foreign policy, within certain limits. So, the issue is not as simple as you seem to think it is. You can't have it both ways. You seem to like the judicial review established by the constitutional set-up and recognized by the Supreme Court, any yet when the Constitution gives the president a power, somehow that power no longer matters? That it's a matter for any federal judge to rule upon? Nice try, but no cigar. In my opinion, the Supreme Court will have no choice but to determine that the president does indeed have the authority to conduct US foreign policy, with the advice and consent of the senate as set out in Article II. Were it otherwise, the US might as well forget about having a foreign policy. You think that's a good idea? Remember, some day the shoe may be on the other foot and you'll be screaming to high heaven for the President to take hold of the situation and do something.

And that's beside the point, right? The issue is not who appointed the judge. The issue is whether a low level federal judge can negate the power of the US President to conduct foreign policy. And, as I've said, such a policy would be stupid on its face. No matter what a President does, there will always be people who disagree with him. Why should those people be able to simply file a law suit to stop the President? The net result would be a paralysis of foreign policy. Nobody running the show.