[Tom Bishop]

The Government of Canada confirms that the Canadian Forces (CF) are beholden to the Crown:

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/military-law/crown-prerogative/the-specific-case-of-the-crown-prerogative-power-to-deploy-the-cf-on-military-operations-of-canada.html

As will be discussed, a decision to deploy the CF internationally is an exercise of the federal Crown prerogative. No statute acts to limit the executive's authority in this area. While decisions to deploy the CF are, in theory, subject to the review of the courts, the courts have held that they are decisions made on matters of high policy. This means that the courts have declined to second-guess Crown prerogative decisions under applications for judicial review. Further, no Charter claims flowing from CF deployments have been successful to date.

...

As a preliminary matter, the Crown prerogative at issue in the case of an executive decision to deploy the CF outside of Canada in support of a military operation is a prerogative exercised by the federal, as opposed to a provincial, executive:

"The Queen is expressly declared to be Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of and in Canada (Constitution [Constitution Act, 1867] s.15.). Since exclusive legislative authority in relation to militia, military and naval service and defence is conferred on the Parliament of Canada, (s.91(7)) the applicable prerogative powers appear to be exercisable by the Crown in right of Canada.¹³¹"

...

There is a wealth of case law establishing that the power to deploy the CF on military operations outside of Canada is within the contents of the Crown prerogative. From the House of Lords decision in Chandler v. D.P.P:¹³²

"It is in my opinion clear that the disposition and armament of the armed forces are, and for centuries have been, within the exclusive discretion of the Crown (…)¹³³"

In addition, the academics have consistently reinforced this common law position. From Lordon:

"The Crown has certain prerogative powers or duties to act in defence of the realm, including the power to station and control the armed forces.¹³⁴"

Also: How exactly would trump even BUY canada?  And what benefits would they have going from a self governing country to ... a state, under America, with shitty healthcare, lax environmental laws, and incredibly poor labor protections?

Healthcare is controlled by the States themselves in America. There isn't a healthcare package that Canada would have to apply. They can continue taxing people for their "free" healthcare if they want. In the US the States are basically countries who just agree to the few amendments and agreement in the Constitution such as common trade and common military. Anything not in the Constitution is left to the States. Some States are better than others in areas such as education, but that is their prerogative.

Likewise, labor protection and extra environmental laws are all the State's responsibility to regulate. The lax federal laws you are complaining about is actually the freedom for the States to govern themselves. Much of that isn't in the Constitution at all.

The Constitution is very brief in its provisions. Many of the conflicts in US Government federal policy, in fact, are about the Liberals' creative interpretation of terms like "right to privacy" in the brevity of the Constitution to allow the mass killing of human fetuses and implementation of widespread right to abortion nationally. In recent years a saner Supreme Court has struck this down, and is presently doing so for similar insanities.

[honk]

Why are we even talking about the historical effects of colonialism or the impact of the royal family as if they have anything to do with this? Trump doesn't know anything about these subjects, nor does he care about them. This is his way of trying to create a legacy for himself as the president. An actual leader who was qualified for the role and knew what they were doing would look to the legislation they champion and sign as their legacy, but Trump, of course, doesn't know or care about policy or governing, so the only things he can think of for his legacy are big, flashy stunts that a kid would understand. Build a giant wall between America and Mexico. Create a whole new branch of the military focusing on space. Have a huge military parade for the flex. Buy Canada and Greenland. Take over Panama. There's no secret plan or clever reasoning. It's just a dumb guy being loud and dumb.

To respond to what Action80 said the other day:

People in Trump's own administration were prosecuting him...it is silly to suggest another administration would not.

Sitting presidents are never prosecuted, so, no, of course he wasn't prosecuted by his own administration. He was investigated, and we saw what those investigations amounted to when Biden took office - two years of apparently doing nothing and a final two years in which Trump was able to run out the clock by appealing to the Supreme Court for protection, which they gave him for political rather than legal/constitutional reasons. Maybe I can amend my previous insistence that Trump won't be prosecuted by a future administration - maybe he will be, but he won't face any meaningful consequences for what he's done. Not because he's innocent, but because he'll continue to game the system until either he dies or the government gives up.

Gaetz was never going to be AG.

He was a long shot, certainly, but he wasn't a bluff or joke. If Congress had actually approved Gaetz, Trump would absolutely have confirmed him. He wouldn't have said, "Whoa, slow down, I don't really want this guy as AG!" Gaetz is a very bad person who should never have been even considered for the role, and Trump absolutely deserves blame for trying to nominate him, however unlikely it was that he would have succeeded.

Trump owes his political success to the same people who made Bush, Clinton, and Obama.

I'm not sure what you mean by this or how it's a good response to what I said. If your point was simply that many of Trump's voters had previously voted for Bush, Clinton, and Obama, then...yes, obviously. What I'm saying is that as far as I can tell, Trump has benefited more than any other politician from a purely intuitive belief in his positive qualities that flies in the face of all available evidence. As much as conservatives like to sneer about "feels over reals," they're the ones who live up to that phrase the most. All evidence suggests that Trump is a huge liar, but he feels like he's honest and relatable! All evidence suggests that Trump was a lousy businessman who inherited his wealth and didn't earn it, but he feels like a great businessman - because of that reality show I watched!

It might be possible the election results will not be certified.

No, it's not.

[markjo]

It might be possible the election results will not be certified.

No, it's not.

It's possible, just not likely.

The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House. 

Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel. 

[Lord Dave]

It might be possible the election results will not be certified.

No, it's not.

It's possible, just not likely.

The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House. 

Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel. 

And then it'll go to SCOTUS which will say "You can't persecute him for breaking an oath as all actions he takes as president are not subject to investigation or use as evidence"

[Action80]

Only in a make-believe world does the act of two impeachments not ultimately qualify as a form of prosecution.

Only in a make-believe world does one actually believe in a legitimate electoral process.

Only in a make-believe world does one believe this is not a made-for-TV situation for the next four years, commencing with the counting of the electoral college.

[markjo]

And then it'll go to SCOTUS which will say "You can't persecute him for breaking an oath as all actions he takes as president are not subject to investigation or use as evidence"

As I understand it, SCOTUS has no say in the matter.  From the same article:

Second, counting the Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter, because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question.

Like I said, possible, but not likely.

[honk]

It might be possible the election results will not be certified.

No, it's not.

It's possible, just not likely.

The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House. 

Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.

That's not how it works. Congress does not have the right to make these kinds of constitutional determinations and take unilateral action on them, let alone for something drastic like overturning an election.

Only in a make-believe world does the act of two impeachments not ultimately qualify as a form of prosecution.

Impeachment is objectively an entirely separate process to criminal prosecution, as it was designed to be. In any case, it was Congress that impeached Trump, not his own administration.

[Pete Svarrior]

I trust Google AI more

Lmao, Tom trusts stochastic parrots

[Lord Dave]

I trust Google AI more

Lmao, Tom trusts stochastic parrots

Run by those evil liberals, no less.

[markjo]

That's not how it works. Congress does not have the right to make these kinds of constitutional determinations and take unilateral action on them, let alone for something drastic like overturning an election.

Both houses of Congress voted to convict Trump of insurrection at his second impeachment trial.  It sounds like they already made those sorts constitutional determinations and of took that sort of action.

[honk]

That's not how it works. Congress does not have the right to make these kinds of constitutional determinations and take unilateral action on them, let alone for something drastic like overturning an election.

Both houses of Congress voted to convict Trump of insurrection at his second impeachment trial.  It sounds like they already made those sorts constitutional determinations and of took that sort of action.

Only the Senate votes on whether or not to convict in an impeachment trial, and Trump was acquitted with a vote of 57-43, ten votes short of a conviction.

[Lord Dave]

Guys, even if there was legal standing to stop him, what do you think MAGA will do if we verify their own fears that "The Deep State" is gonna stop Trump? 
Civil War.
Terrorism.
Alot of death.


I say let Trump do his thing.  It's already clear that Republicans are not as... Blindly loyal as the used to be.  Especially in the House.

[Action80]

Dave, do you believe the "Deep State," exists?

[Lord Dave]

Dave, do you believe the "Deep State," exists?

Not overly.  It's a very shallow state.

[Action80]

Is the issue wading in what is now shallower water, with no more need to spare any darkness?

[Lord Dave]

No, more like the parts people are saying is 'Deep State' is just normal backroom politics that changes with the times.  This stuff has always been there, ita just been amplified to mythical levels by the internet.

In reality, if you think something is a deep state conspiracy and have lots of evidence... You're probably wrong.

[Action80]

What exactly has changed about the "backroom politics," within the US Government since, say, the Spanish-American War, other than the people?

[Tom Bishop]

No, more like the parts people are saying is 'Deep State' is just normal backroom politics that changes with the times.  This stuff has always been there, ita just been amplified to mythical levels by the internet.

Politics are not supposed to be conducted in the "back room" where no one can see. It's wrong even if it has been occurring since the dawn of democracy.

Over the years the US Government has admitted to injecting people with diseases and studying them without telling them about it, giving a free pass to Nazi war criminals and making them American citizens, and engaging in the purposeful genocide of Native Americans. Shame on you for trying to convince us that the government doing things in secret is normal and okay.

[Lord Dave]

What exactly has changed about the "backroom politics," within the US Government since, say, the Spanish-American War, other than the people?

What they do and how extreme their views are.

No, more like the parts people are saying is 'Deep State' is just normal backroom politics that changes with the times.  This stuff has always been there, ita just been amplified to mythical levels by the internet.

Politics are not supposed to be conducted in the "back room" where no one can see. It's wrong even if it has been occurring since the dawn of democracy.

Then every democracy since the dawn of time has been wrong.
Name me 1 democracy in which two people who vote in the government have never had a private conversation about politics?  That every single dialog with their fellow voters or representatives was public in some way?

Over the years the US Government has admitted to injecting people with diseases and studying them without telling them about it

That's the Deep State part that you don't know about until you are told.

giving a free pass to Nazi war criminals and making them American citizens

Likely in exchange for Intel to win the war.  And broadcasting it wouldn't help get more defectors.

and engaging in the purposeful genocide of Native Americans. Shame on you for trying to convince us that the government doing things in secret is normal and okay.

Pretty sure the Native American genocide wasn't a secret. 

Also, never said it was ok.  Please learn to read and not insert words into my posts.

[Action80]

What is less or more extreme than blowing up your own boat?

I guess you are saying the Deep State is becoming more extreme and more pervasive, almost not shallow.