Trump MAGAthread II: Donald and Mike go to the White House

[Novus America]

Soviets never mastered ICBMs all to well, hence they're heavy reliance on nuclear bombers and SLBMs.

God, didn't they teach you kids anything in school?!?

In 1962 they did not exist. Also being liquid fueled are obsolete and poorly suited for second strike ability.

At the time of the Cuban missile crisis the Soviets had a very poor and small ICBM capability. Hence why they wanted missiles in Cuba in the first place.

[Jerzylvania]

God, didn't they teach you kids anything in school?!?

The courses 'nuclear weaponry' and 'MAD' should definitely be part of any high school curriculum. Damn Common Core screwing up your youth.

But they'll have to cut the kids' daily fuck off "study" period and maybe get rid of their foreign language class... Oh those damn foreigners' languages, right?

[Novus America]

God, didn't they teach you kids anything in school?!?

And they haven't exactly given up on the idea.

In fact I think the UK is the only nuclear power to try making ICBMs and then give up on them.

Well solid fueled submarine launched ICBMs have made others obsolete.
Why the Russians are building that silly thing is beyond me.

The US retired the Titan IIs decades ago.

[Vassenor]

Looks like Gitmo isn't closing after all.

Guess there has to be somewhere to put all the people who slag Trump off on Twitter.

[Frenequesta]

Looks like Gitmo isn't closing after all.

Guess there has to be somewhere to put all the people who slag Trump off on Twitter.

At least that's one promise he can easily keep.

[Farnhamia]

Looks like Gitmo isn't closing after all.

Guess there has to be somewhere to put all the people who slag Trump off on Twitter.

Why does Trump have to repeat things like the Goose in Charlotte's Web?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Looks like Gitmo isn't closing after all.

Guess there has to be somewhere to put all the people who slag Trump off on Twitter.

If Obama has any heart, he will sign the US in on the ICC, stat. We might be able to persecute Trump there once he leaves office.

[Novus America]

Looks like Gitmo isn't closing after all.

Guess there has to be somewhere to put all the people who slag Trump off on Twitter.

If Obama has any heart, he will sign the US in on the ICC, stat. We might be able to persecute Trump there once he leaves office.

Signing it means nothing unless the senate ratifies it.
Plus Trump can simply withdraw the signature.

[The East Marches]

Looks like Gitmo isn't closing after all.

Guess there has to be somewhere to put all the people who slag Trump off on Twitter.

If Obama has any heart, he will sign the US in on the ICC, stat. We might be able to persecute Trump there once he leaves office.

Wouldn't Obama have to have the whole invade Hague Act repealed?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

If Obama has any heart, he will sign the US in on the ICC, stat. We might be able to persecute Trump there once he leaves office.

Signing it means nothing unless the senate ratifies it.

Yeah, which is the next problem. Well, signing means something, in that the US can't act completely contrary to the Rome Statute anymore. They are not really bound, but in a way, they are still bound. Signing brings states in weird legal limbo's, but one that has been deeply explored because it happens so damn often.

But signing is the first step, at least.

[The Black Forrest]

So Jay Clayton rumored to run the SEC?

A good thing or yet another alligator for the swamp?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN14N1Y9

[Sanctissima]

Signing it means nothing unless the senate ratifies it.

Yeah, which is the next problem. Well, signing means something, in that the US can't act completely contrary to the Rome Statute anymore. They are not really bound, but in a way, they are still bound. Signing brings states in weird legal limbo's, but one that has been deeply explored because it happens so damn often.

But signing is the first step, at least.

Which, frankly, would still mean nothing since I really doubt Trump wouldn't just repeal it the moment he got into office.

[Novus America]

Signing it means nothing unless the senate ratifies it.

Yeah, which is the next problem. Well, signing means something, in that the US can't act completely contrary to the Rome Statute anymore. They are not really bound, but in a way, they are still bound. Signing brings states in weird legal limbo's, but one that has been deeply explored because it happens so damn often.

But signing is the first step, at least.

While the US does not completely ignore the Rome statute, (as some is customary international law) we do not allow our citizens to be tried by the ICC.

Signing it does not make us more bound until it is ratified and Trump can simply withdraw our signature.

Which we already did once, sign then withdraw our signature.

[Farnhamia]

So Jay Clayton rumored to run the SEC?

A good thing or yet another alligator for the swamp?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN14N1Y9

Bernie Madoff is still doing time, so until Trump can pardon him, I guess. Don't know anything about this guy.

[The East Marches]

Signing it means nothing unless the senate ratifies it.

Yeah, which is the next problem. Well, signing means something, in that the US can't act completely contrary to the Rome Statute anymore. They are not really bound, but in a way, they are still bound. Signing brings states in weird legal limbo's, but one that has been deeply explored because it happens so damn often.

But signing is the first step, at least.

Again, we could withdraw or simply ignore it like we do plenty of other "international law". Still haven't gotten back to me about the whole Constitution and International Law thing. You put too much faith in the unenforceable and the idea of some super law which we all must follow.

[Farnhamia]

Yeah, which is the next problem. Well, signing means something, in that the US can't act completely contrary to the Rome Statute anymore. They are not really bound, but in a way, they are still bound. Signing brings states in weird legal limbo's, but one that has been deeply explored because it happens so damn often.

But signing is the first step, at least.

Again, we could withdraw or simply ignore it like we do plenty of other "international law". Still haven't gotten back to me about the whole Constitution and International Law thing. You put too much faith in the unenforceable and the idea of some super law which we all must follow.

The Sixth Amendment says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So a ratified treaty that commits the US to an "international law" is part of the supreme Law of the Land. The chances of the Senate ratifying the Rome Statute are ... snowballs in hell come to mind.

[The East Marches]

Again, we could withdraw or simply ignore it like we do plenty of other "international law". Still haven't gotten back to me about the whole Constitution and International Law thing. You put too much faith in the unenforceable and the idea of some super law which we all must follow.

The Sixth Amendment says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So a ratified treaty that commits the US to an "international law" is part of the supreme Law of the Land. The chances of the Senate ratifying the Rome Statute are ... snowballs in hell come to mind.

Yes so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If it's international law versus the Constitution, the Constitution wins. He had previously made the opposite argument.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

Also we have a law against following the ICC which has not yet been repealed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act

How can we sign to something or ratify it if we have laws against it already?

[Novus America]

Again, we could withdraw or simply ignore it like we do plenty of other "international law". Still haven't gotten back to me about the whole Constitution and International Law thing. You put too much faith in the unenforceable and the idea of some super law which we all must follow.

The Sixth Amendment says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So a ratified treaty that commits the US to an "international law" is part of the supreme Law of the Land. The chances of the Senate ratifying the Rome Statute are ... snowballs in hell come to mind.

While signed, ratified treaties are law (though still subordinate to the Constitution) Trump can simply withdraw the signature. Even after the Senate ratified it, which they will not. A president can unilaterally kill a treaty, but NOT unilaterally make it law.

To be law the treaty must have a current, valid signature AND be ratified.

[Farnhamia]

The Sixth Amendment says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So a ratified treaty that commits the US to an "international law" is part of the supreme Law of the Land. The chances of the Senate ratifying the Rome Statute are ... snowballs in hell come to mind.

While signed, ratified treaties are law (though still subordinate to the Constitution) Trump can simply withdraw the signature. Even after the Senate ratified it, which they will not. A president can unilaterally kill a treaty, but NOT unilaterally make it law.

To be law the treaty must have a current, valid signature AND be ratified.

Which what my comment about the Senate and snowballs in hell was meant to convey.

[Uxupox]

Looks like Gitmo isn't closing after all.

Guess there has to be somewhere to put all the people who slag Trump off on Twitter.

If Obama has any heart, he will sign the US in on the ICC, stat. We might be able to persecute Trump there once he leaves office.

No. That would completely destroy the protection of american agents abroad.

[Grinning Dragon]

Again, we could withdraw or simply ignore it like we do plenty of other "international law". Still haven't gotten back to me about the whole Constitution and International Law thing. You put too much faith in the unenforceable and the idea of some super law which we all must follow.

The Sixth Amendment says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So a ratified treaty that commits the US to an "international law" is part of the supreme Law of the Land. The chances of the Senate ratifying the Rome Statute are ... snowballs in hell come to mind.

Come again? The 6th Amendment deals with trial.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

Did you mean Article 6?

[Vassenor]

Can someone explain what the treaty deals with and why the GOP desperately wants nothing to do with it?

[Novus America]

The Sixth Amendment says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So a ratified treaty that commits the US to an "international law" is part of the supreme Law of the Land. The chances of the Senate ratifying the Rome Statute are ... snowballs in hell come to mind.

Yes so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If it's international law versus the Constitution, the Constitution wins. He had previously made the opposite argument.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

Also we have a law against following the ICC which has not yet been repealed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act

How can we sign to something or ratify it if we have laws against it already?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Money_Cases
Another problem. While treaties have supremacy over state law, they are subordinate to the US constitution and federal laws.

[Novus America]

Can someone explain what the treaty deals with and why the GOP desperately wants nothing to do with it?

The treaty deals with the ICC ability to prosecute people for violating international law. The opposition to it is not wanting US military and other government personnel arrested and charged by a foreign court.

[Vassenor]

Can someone explain what the treaty deals with and why the GOP desperately wants nothing to do with it?

The treaty deals with the ICC ability to prosecute people for violating international law. The opposition to it is not wanting US military and other government personnel arrested and charged by a foreign court.

Ah, the "we want to be able to commit war crimes with impunity" argument?