DeSantis 2024?

[BugI02]

He keeps glossing over the:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States . . . .” U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl.

part. The President HAS no superior officer, so who has the authority to tell him what to do about military or foreign policy matters?

He give short shrift to this part, also:

Yes, the president can declassify documents, but there isn’t a set protocol they have to follow

Former President Trump claimed documents found at Mar-a-Lago were “all declassified.” We explain why sitting presidents can declassify documents and how it works.

www.verifythis.com

A sitting U.S. president has wide-ranging authority to classify and declassify certain documents, but former presidents do not have authority over classification and declassification.

Current presidents can classify documents as long as they can “make a plausible argument that it is related to national security.” On the other hand, the president “doesn’t have to give any reason for declassifying” information, according to McClanahan.

“He can just say, ‘I decide that this should be declassified,’ and it’s declassified,” McClanahan said.

A 2009 executive order directs the head of a government agency that originally deemed information classified to oversee its declassification, and sets some rules for that process. But those protocols outlined in the executive order don’t apply to the president, McClanahan said.

That's Kel McClanahan speaking, BTW
Mr. McClanahan is the Executive Director of National Security Counselors, a Washington-area non-profit public interest law firm that specializes in national security law and information and privacy law, and through which he often represents Intelligence Community employees and contractors.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I still want to know just who has this power over the President? Who has greater constitutional authority over the documents of his administration than the President? Who has greater constitutional authority over how and when documents are classified, declassified, and determined to be personal?

If others have the power over the documents just who is it and where do they get that power?

The funny thing about these topics is folks have strong opinions on this because they find it a little uncomfortable that the president has these powers but say little about executive overeach with EO’s and the agencies under the executive usurping the power of congress.

Again, please point to that absolute power grant in the Constitution... neither the President nor other branches have power not expressly granted in the Constitution.

Just plain does not exist.

 

[Ingomike]

Again, please point to that absolute power grant in the Constitution... neither the President nor other branches have power not expressly granted in the Constitution.

Just plain does not exist.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.“

What is executive power? If you are willing to discuss it, I find it fascinating. I also I will tell you that what I understand now is vastly different than what I understood ten years ago. You are about where I was back then now.

Can we agree on this point; Can a president and a congress pass a law that binds a future president? I say they cannot. Can a president and a congress agree that the president will give up some power and it be binding on future presidents? I say no because they cannot bind future administrations but they can for their own administrations.

 

[DadSmith]

 

[Alamo]

And…

Disney Surrenders!

pjmedia.com

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

And…

Disney Surrenders!

pjmedia.com

He only won because they had a GOP legislature. This may look like real winning, but we all know he isn't MURICA FIRST!

 

[BugI02]

Maybe he should 'unpause' his campaign

Oops, that ship sailed, didn't it?

 

[MarylandTacomaRider]

I guess republicans dont care about “free speech” if you criticize a certain group of people.

 

[jamil]

I just read the bill. It's pretty radical and kinda unconstitutional. It violates the first, 5th, and 14th amendments. Where is white people's special protections against hateful speech? Where is black people's special protections against hateful speech? And so on. Conservatives who support and defend such legislation are blatantly inconsistent. Okay for me but not for thee because god hates people who hate jews but is cool with people who hate any other group.

But what the bill doesn't do, is ban antisemitism. It defines it. Not sure what the purpose of that is. Should the woke define racism in law?

 

[MarylandTacomaRider]

I just read the bill. It's pretty radical and kinda unconstitutional. It violates the first, 5th, and 14th amendments. Where is white people's special protections against hateful speech? Where is black people's special protections against hateful speech? And so on. Conservatives who support and defend such legislation are blatantly inconsistent. Okay for me but not for thee because god hates people who hate jews but is cool with people who hate any other group.

But what the bill doesn't do, is ban antisemitism. It defines it. Not sure what the purpose of that is. Should the woke define racism in law?

It’s absolutely insane man and there’s no way it’ll last in the Supreme Court!

 

[jamil]

It’s absolutely insane man and there’s no way it’ll last in the Supreme Court!

I agree that it's insane. But let's not make it more than it is. The claim that the bill bans what it defines as antisemitism isn't true. It just defines it as far as this bill goes. It looks like it was written by a Jewish legislator. I think it is kinda racist to legislate this definition. Of course Jewish people would tend to support it. It's at least a form of virtue signaling for the non-jewish people, particularly evangelicals who believe Jews are God's chosen people and that He will bless them for supporting Israel.

I don't have a reason to think of Jewish people as being any more special than, say, Hawaiians. They're humans. And as such should be afforded the same deference and dignity as any other humans. But not more. Antisemitism doesn't need to be singled out as any more heinous than any other way of hating people.

 

[MarylandTacomaRider]

I agree that it's insane. But let's not make it more than it is. The claim that the bill bans what it defines as antisemitism isn't true. It just defines it as far as this bill goes. It looks like it was written by a Jewish legislator. I think it is kinda racist to legislate this definition. Of course Jewish people would tend to support it. It's at least a form of virtue signaling for the non-jewish people, particularly evangelicals who believe Jews are God's chosen people and that He will bless them for supporting Israel.

I don't have a reason to think of Jewish people as being any more special than, say, Hawaiians. They're humans. And as such should be afforded the same deference and dignity as any other humans. But not more. Antisemitism doesn't need to be singled out as any more heinous than any other way of hating people.

As someone who was raised Dispy Evangelical. There’s definitely a large obsession with Israel and Jewish people, and that it’s a sin to say anything negative about the two.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I just read the bill. It's pretty radical and kinda unconstitutional. It violates the first, 5th, and 14th amendments.

How so? I read it also and it appears to simply define anti-semitism. Is it somehow linked to a hate-speech law with criminal/civil penalties for saying those things?

(ok, later I see you acknowledge it's just a definition)

I will say that I view a handful of the definitions as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist without crossing into antisemitism... but can say in real life, with real people spouting stuff, Jew-hating antisemitism is half a breathe behind those...

Where is white people's special protections against hateful speech?

The only one I take issue with is "white privilege"... especially referring to employment... I've worked all my life under the affirmative action regime and it has been white guys to the back of the bus, last in line. Period. Full stop.

Them's been the rules, so I've played accordingly.

Where is black people's special protections against hateful speech?

Everywhere?

And so on. Conservatives who support and defend such legislation are blatantly inconsistent. Okay for me but not for thee because god hates people who hate jews but is cool with people who hate any other group.

Why the spotlight? Could it be the preponderance of violence and vandalism against Jewish people and organizations far, far outsized versus their per capita population?

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

 

[jamil]

I mean, it's not wrong.

 

[jamil]

How so? I read it also and it appears to simply define anti-semitism. Is it somehow linked to a hate-speech law with criminal/civil penalties for saying those things?

(ok, later I see you acknowledge it's just a definition)

I will say that I view a handful of the definitions as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist without crossing into antisemitism... but can say in real life, with real people spouting stuff, Jew-hating antisemitism is half a breathe behind those...


The only one I take issue with is "white privilege"... especially referring to employment... I've worked all my life under the affirmative action regime and it has been white guys to the back of the bus, last in line. Period. Full stop.

Them's been the rules, so I've played accordingly.


Everywhere?


Why the spotlight? Could it be the preponderance of violence and vandalism against Jewish people and organizations far, far outsized versus their per capita population?

Doesn't matter. I don't see a purpose for singling out what is specifically offensive to Jews. They are humans like any other, and need no special definitions or protections. Treat individuals with the respect and dignity anyone should be afforded. But also no respect is owed to individuals who've shown themselves not to deserve it. Bigotry is bigotry whether it is against Jews or whomever.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I mean, it's not wrong.

If only his tweets were meaner…

 

[jamil]

If only his tweets were meaner…

Would have helped if he could have gotten indicted before Trump did.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Would have helped if he could have gotten indicted before Trump did.

Florida democrats really are worthless.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]