Or we could let them deteriorate and collapse with cars on it and killing people. up to you.

 

I support the infrastructure part of the AR&RA 100%. I just hate that every single road I drive on (355, 88, 294, Touhy, 75th street in Naperville, 290, Devon in Elk Grove, soon the Throndale exit on 355) is under construction right now. Makes it a big PITA.

 

In other words, it was a joke

Edited July 6, 200916 yr by StrangeSox

I support the infrastructure part of the AR&RA 100%. I just hate that every single road I drive on (355, 88, 294, Touhy, 75th street in Naperville, 290, Devon in Elk Grove, soon the Throndale exit on 355) is under construction right now. Makes it a big PITA.

Man, you have bad luck. lol

I support the infrastructure part of the AR&RA 100%. I just hate that every single road I drive on (355, 88, 294, Touhy, 75th street in Naperville, 290, Devon in Elk Grove, soon the Throndale exit on 355) is under construction right now. Makes it a big PITA.

So basically, it's a normal Chicago Summer traffic-wise?

I support the infrastructure part of the AR&RA 100%. I just hate that every single road I drive on (355, 88, 294, Touhy, 75th street in Naperville, 290, Devon in Elk Grove, soon the Throndale exit on 355) is under construction right now. Makes it a big PITA.

 

In other words, it was a joke

 

 

Soon to be joined by Archer from rte 83 to 127th st., derby from archer to 131st, State st in Lemont from 127th to Illinois, and 127th st from Ave to Smith rd. And that is just Lemont itself.

Just wow.

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5

 

I do see one thing about this - let's see if you all catch it as well.

 

Just wow.

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5

 

I do see one thing about this - let's see if you all catch it as well.

This isn't new, I don't think it ever even made it out of committee.

Since 1956, many bipartisan resolutions to repeal the 22nd Amendment have been submitted to Congress - and gone nowhere. The most recent one to be buried in a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee was proposed last February. Oddly, both the current chairman of that committee, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, and the former chairman, Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, both Republicans, have in the past co-sponsored resolutions to repeal the amendment.

 

Hasn't the time come for Congress and the voters to revoke an authoritarian, barely considered amendment? Republicans, who revere "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution and who applaud the rise of the conservative movement, should welcome the possibility of a three- or four-term Republican president, thus avoiding "second termitis."

 

And Democrats, as they contemplate the century that lies ahead, can hope that in another world crisis, this misbegotten amendment will not be there to bar a future Franklin Roosevelt from offering the kind of leadership that he provided in the 1940's.

From a 2006 op-ed NYT piece. Gets introduced every year.

From a 2006 op-ed NYT piece. Gets introduced every year.

Exactly. I saw that right away and thought - why did this even get brought up as a talking point?

 

Because it sounds good to mock it, that's why. THERE is where I have a problem with Limbaugh - THAT is what makes him a joke.

 

Good catch, sir. I was hoping someone else would see that.

Did Obama really just give up a third of our nukes to Russia without running it by the Senate?

Did Obama really just give up a third of our nukes to Russia without running it by the Senate?

Yep.

Did Obama really just give up a third of our nukes to Russia without running it by the Senate?

Not even close.

 

Its yet another reduction treaty, both sides reducing. Considering the stockpiles both still have, this has basically no strategic capability impact whatsoever.

 

Not even close.

 

Its yet another reduction treaty, both sides reducing. Considering the stockpiles both still have, this has basically no strategic capability impact whatsoever.

So? He did it without Congressional approval. Now of course they will rubber stamp it, but technically, he did that. It doesn't matter what they "other side" does. That's not the point.

 

And I don't care - I'm just pointing this out.

 

So? He did it without Congressional approval. Now of course they will rubber stamp it, but technically, he did that. It doesn't matter what they "other side" does. That's not the point.

 

And I don't care - I'm just pointing this out.

Why would he need Congressional approval to change military equipment allocation? He doesn't. If he and the ruskies want to bring down weapons levels simultaneously, they can both do that executively. If its an official treaty, then Congress does need to approve it. The treaty gives it legal binding. But if its just the two executives saying "yeah, I'll do this, if you do that", then no Congressional approval is required.

 

Why would he need Congressional approval to change military equipment allocation? He doesn't. If he and the ruskies want to bring down weapons levels simultaneously, they can both do that executively. If its an official treaty, then Congress does need to approve it. The treaty gives it legal binding. But if its just the two executives saying "yeah, I'll do this, if you do that", then no Congressional approval is required.

You're right - I was thinking it was some sort of treaty.

You're right - I was thinking it was some sort of treaty.

You actually have a point here, this is a major constitutional issue that has never been resolved. The President is commander in chief of the military and hence can order the military to do things like dismantle nuclear weapons, invade countries, move equipment around, and doesn't necessarily need Congressional approval to do it. But at the same time, when does he cross the boundary between his commander in chief powers and the requirement that treaties are submitted to the Senate? It's never been decided.

 

The first example of this I really know of is the Atlantic Charter; the agreement between Churchill and FDR in 1941 outlining the goals of the "allied" side for the war and sending a good chunk of U.S. military equipment to Britain. Based on previous standards it probably should have been submitted to the Senate as a treaty, but the isolationist Senate never would have passed it, so FDR just did it as an agreement between 2 heads of state, and seemingly never actually put anything in writing so that there was nothing to submit.

 

At some point, Congress really ought to write some law regarding this and the Supreme Court ought to settle it, but that would require Congress stepping up and enforcing its power, which it hasn't been wont to do in decades.

Wasn't the original START something that was formally ratified by the Senate? (START = Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)

Wasn't the original START something that was formally ratified by the Senate? (START = Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)

 

I believe you are correct.

Wasn't the original START something that was formally ratified by the Senate? (START = Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)

Right, which is why I automatically thought the answer was "yes" to Thunderbolt's question. Again, not mocking Obama (this time, ) - I just thought it was something that Congress had to ratify because it was in the form of a treaty.

Right, which is why I automatically thought the answer was "yes" to Thunderbolt's question. Again, not mocking Obama (this time, ) - I just thought it was something that Congress had to ratify because it was in the form of a treaty.

If they renew START then it'll need Senate approval. I haven't read exactly what Obama did besides get Medvedev to agree on conditions, I'll have to read on that more. Which is probably about the way it usually happens I would think, Nixon, Ford, and Carter all did that. Reagan probably would've too but that was all shot to s*** by the time he was in office cuz of Afghanistan.

Edited July 10, 200916 yr by lostfan

Chuck Schumer is on meet the press. This guy is a complete snake oil salesman. He even gave the bulls*** "saved or created jobs" nonsense.

 

oh and David Gregory is terrible at his job. i can see why no one watches this show anymore.

Edited July 12, 200916 yr by mr_genius

So? He did it without Congressional approval. Now of course they will rubber stamp it, but technically, he did that. It doesn't matter what they "other side" does. That's not the point.

 

And I don't care - I'm just pointing this out.

He is Commander in Chief of the military. He can do that.

Chuck Schumer is on meet the press. This guy is a complete snake oil salesman. He even gave the bulls*** "saved or created jobs" nonsense.

 

oh and David Gregory is terrible at his job. i can see why no one watches this show anymore.

 

Yeah how lucky am I to have had Chucky AND Hillary as my senators the past several years. (I don't really mind Gillebrand at all, especially as Hillary's replacement.)

He is Commander in Chief of the military. He can do that.

Actually, no, he can't. Why don't you read the constitution?

 

And for the record, this IS a treaty and must be eventually ratified by the Senate.

And for the record, this IS a treaty and must be eventually ratified by the Senate.

Are you actually certain of that or are you just guessing?

 

It'd be an interesting constitutional test actually to see what would happen if the President ordered the dismantling of a large number of nuclear weapons and then Congress used its budgetary authority to prevent that from happening.

Are you actually certain of that or are you just guessing?

 

It'd be an interesting constitutional test actually to see what would happen if the President ordered the dismantling of a large number of nuclear weapons and then Congress used its budgetary authority to prevent that from happening.

I know it is. It's an extention of the START treaty that is set to expire Dec. 5.

 

They were talking about how they could use some executive orders to get around this until the Senate passed the treaty if they needed to.

 

It's a formality, of course they'll pass it (which is completely fine) - so they need to get about it just to prevent some sort of "power grab" from the executive. I mean think of the blaspheme if a Republican did this. Just sayin'. The main point is you need this check that is in the constitution adhered to - so just get it done, no big deal, without regard to party.