Trump meets with Muslims, Jews, Pope - who represents all Christians?

[Guest shiloh357]

35 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

Trump's hubris will be his own undoing; hopefully he and his family doesn't take the rest of the country down with him.

I am more concerned about the dishonesty of his critics.

[PlanetChee]

2 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

I saw no explanation of legal vs. absolute authority.

I don't think you'll accept President Trump has any authority whatever. The link was self explanatory. He can declassify materials at his discretion. Therefore, being he's not a stupid man, had he decided to share anything about national security findings concerning ISIS and terrorism with Russia, he could have done so legally. That's what matters. His legal authority as President of the United States of America. 

The truth defeats the false media every time. It then becomes a matter of that which the sons and daughters of God wish to believe. Truth or fabrication. 1 John 5:19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

 

Presidential Declassification of Previously Classified Material

Many issues are raised by the claim, by "Scooter" Libby, that President Bush declassified and thus authorized disclosure of previously classified material relating to the question whether Iraq had, or was seeking, weapons of mass destruction. Some of these issues have long-term as well as short-term interest, so it is worthwhile to try to sort them out.

It appears to be true that the President has the legal authority to declassify classified materials however he chooses. This conclusion is supported by dicta in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 US 518 (1988), and it is consistent with the historical fact that classification and declassification decisions have been made by the President. (On the relevance of historical facts, see Justice Frankfurter's separate opinion in The Steel Seizure Case.) To be sure, Congress might have the power to limit the President's power to classify and declassify (though the President is likely to resist any such limitation on constitutional grounds) -- but no such limitation appears to be in place.

It is also true that the President could, by executive order, impose substantive and procedural limits on declassification decisions by the entire executive branch, including himself. But the currently governing order, E.O. 13292 (amending E.O. 12958, as amended), seems to be best read not to limit the President's own declassification authority. There are some wrinkles here. See in particular section 3.1(b), which notes, "In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect [classified] information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified." This section goes on to refer to the decision of the "agency head or the senior agency official," but the reference should probably be understood in the context of ultimate presidential control of classification and declassification decisions.

The legal point is only one side, of course. In assessing declassification decisions, it is important to distinguish among the following: 1) a declassification decision designed to inform the public (fine); 2) a declassification decision designed to correct a widespread misunderstanding of why the President did something (a subset of 1), and also fine, and claimed by some of the president's defenders here); 3) a declassification decision that jeopardizes national security (to say the least, not fine -- but to my knowledge, not alleged thus far with respect to the President or Vice President); 4) a declassification decision that discloses the name of a CIA agent (almost always a subset of 3), and to say the least, not fine -- again, not alleged thus far with respect to the President or Vice President); 5) a declassification decision that represents, in context, an effort not only to defend the President but also to mislead the public (not fine, and alleged by some of the President's critics here).

CONTINUES

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

Romans 13:1-7 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience

 

 

[angels4u]

3 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

Trump's hubris will be his own undoing; hopefully he and his family doesn't take the rest of the country down with him.

There's a lot of fake new going around (again)

[OldSchool2]

2 hours ago, angels4u said:

There's a lot of fake new going around (again)

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

[OldSchool2]

2 hours ago, PlanetChee said:

I don't think you'll accept President Trump has any authority whatever....

No POTUS has absolute authority in a government with checks and balances.

[OldSchool2]

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I am more concerned about the dishonesty of his critics.

I doubt Trump's critics will declassify so many of this nation's secrets that no other country will share intel with us.

[OldSchool2]

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I was quoting one of your posts when you said that Trump said he absolutely had the right to share what he shared....

As I previously posted:

"As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do...."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/16/donald-trump-russia-classified-the-washington-post/101740022/

Can you find "absolute rights" anywhere in the US Constitution?

[MorningGlory]

17 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

Constitutional statue, or one man's opinion about what he called  the "essentially unlimited authority to declassify at will."

"Essentially unlimited" isn't absolute. The only absolute rights I recognize belong to our Creator.

As do I, OS2, but the 'absolute' being discussed refers to the President, any President.  And the classification/declassification  trail ends with the POTUS.  Arguing otherwise is just going in circles.  And it is derailing yet ANOTHER thread.

[MorningGlory]

6 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

Trump's hubris will be his own undoing; hopefully he and his family doesn't take the rest of the country down with him.

Y0u really need to put 'IMO' into such statements because they are pure conjecture. 

[MorningGlory]

52 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

And where there's garbage there are flies.