|
|
|
President Joe Biden's United States of America
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/D6CYK6KCDVFZPMQU53NRJ4GN24.jpg)
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
I love this photo. That dude on the left with the cigar and the hand in the pocket. Boss af. *nods approvingly*
kEiThZ
Superstar
As someone who has a bit of experience in determining security posture, not all of it is theatrics. I assure you the troops don't want to be there any more than anybody else. Their governors don't want them deployed. And Congress doesn't want to have to pay. They have already started drawing down. And when they can be confident, they don't need forces on the Hill, they'll be pulled.
Right now though? I would argue they shouldn't pull anything until the Senate trial is done. And they've stood up a permanent quick reaction force, either national guard or DC Metropolitan police that can augment substantially in the event of another attack.
The US also has the particular problem that guns are accessible. And carrying not being legal in DC is not very relevant at the moment that thousands show up armed. Unless, they are willing to mow down thousands who are armed, they'll need a QRF that is large enough to deal with that contingency.
As someone who has gotten the full tour of the US Capitol, there's some details that would have me very worried. It's a sprawling complex that the average person would have no clue how to navigate. Way larger and complex than our Parliament. It's connected by a private subway to offices and tunnels. There were plenty of yahoos. But the core group of attackers absolutely knew what they were doing and where they were going. Which means they had reconnaissance in advance (which we know about now) and sufficiently detailed information to develop tactics (they planned to gas the Congressmembers in the tunnels). They clearly knew about the fall back plans and shelter-in-place procedures. A second attack, may have a much larger and better organized core group. Which is exactly why they need a QRF to make sure the perimeter is never breached again. Having the appropriate security in place, is the only way they can open up that building to the public again. And I hope they do. There's so much great history inside that building. And it was an honour for me when I got to visit (arranged while I was on exchange with US forces).
Right now though? I would argue they shouldn't pull anything until the Senate trial is done. And they've stood up a permanent quick reaction force, either national guard or DC Metropolitan police that can augment substantially in the event of another attack.
The US also has the particular problem that guns are accessible. And carrying not being legal in DC is not very relevant at the moment that thousands show up armed. Unless, they are willing to mow down thousands who are armed, they'll need a QRF that is large enough to deal with that contingency.
As someone who has gotten the full tour of the US Capitol, there's some details that would have me very worried. It's a sprawling complex that the average person would have no clue how to navigate. Way larger and complex than our Parliament. It's connected by a private subway to offices and tunnels. There were plenty of yahoos. But the core group of attackers absolutely knew what they were doing and where they were going. Which means they had reconnaissance in advance (which we know about now) and sufficiently detailed information to develop tactics (they planned to gas the Congressmembers in the tunnels). They clearly knew about the fall back plans and shelter-in-place procedures. A second attack, may have a much larger and better organized core group. Which is exactly why they need a QRF to make sure the perimeter is never breached again. Having the appropriate security in place, is the only way they can open up that building to the public again. And I hope they do. There's so much great history inside that building. And it was an honour for me when I got to visit (arranged while I was on exchange with US forces).
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
LOL. If you actually believe this.
Republicans did well at the state level in 2020. They will control redistricting. Very likely that Democrats lose the House. And maybe the Senate in 2022. They will need spectacular turnout to avoid that result. But Democrats aren't known for turnout in midterms where they have the White House. Hope I'm wrong. But I'm not optimistic.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Admiral Beez
Superstar
AOC is the reason the Dems failed to gain a firm stronghold in the Senate and why Biden lost Florida. I expect AOC and her socialist squad to be pushed to the sidelines, leaving the centralist Dems to get to work.
Nor does she have the patience or perspective to play the long game. My guess is she resigns in 2022 or 2024.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I agree on the Senate. With their opponent fielding the worst candidate of all time the Dems managed to only gain a couple of Senate seats. Without Trump, the Senate is going to swing right in 2022.
Opinion | Democrats, Here’s How to Lose in 2022. And Deserve It. (Published 2021)
You don’t get re-elected for things voters don’t know about.
Well done, President Biden. The transgender military ban has been reversed. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-reverse-trump-s-transgender-military-ban-n1255522
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Note that an "executive order" is NOT the "law". That needs passing by both House of Congress and Senate, followed by a signing by the President. Can still be reversed by another President, until then.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Wasn't the original ban also an executive order? The only permanent fix is the ERA, and one that expands into LGBT matters.
kEiThZ
Superstar
This is wrong.
A Presidential Executive Order is similar to an Order-in-Council in Canada. It is an executive action that does not require legislative force to effect.
Trump ban in this case was not a legislated ban. It was effectively a direction to the Pentagon to not onboard transgendered persons. It had zero legislative backing and as such is easy to rescind.
Northern Light
Superstar
The ERA...........passed by Congress in 1972..........and still pending, maybe............
Virginia's house approved it last year and argued it was the 38th state to do so, meaning its ratified.
However, Congress had imposed a deadline for ratification which has long since passed.
Its not clear if Congress can extend the deadline retroactively.
There's also the problem of the 5 States that rescinded their approval.
In the past, Congress ignored such rescissions and adopted Amendments anyway.
The Equal Rights Amendment Explained
Thirty-eight states have finally ratified the ERA, but whether its protections for women’s rights are actually added to the Constitution remains an open question.
However, there is a court decision in more recent years suggesting a State does in fact have the right to rescind approval of a constitutional amendment.
Were that upheld, there are two interesting problems.
The first is that it would bring approval back down to 33 States, where 38 are required.
The second is, that theoretically, such a ruling would disallow the 14th and 15th Amendments (which are the Equal Protection clause and the Voting Rights Amendment.)
The SCOTUS has previously ruled that deadlines for approval are a political matter; but I'm unclear if they've ruled previously on a State's right to rescind approval.
Last edited:
Towered
Superstar
Curious about the Order-in-Council - do any Prime Ministers use this tool? I don't recall any examples.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" (issued January 1, 1863) was also an "Executive Order" and deemed a proper military measure. It took passage of the 13th Amendment by the necessary two-thirds vote on January 31, 1865, and ratification by the states on December 6, 1865, to legally end slavery in the United States.
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
They are very common. Ignoring 'perogative' orders (exercised by the Crown through the GG - not sure when the last time that happened), 'statutroy OiC's are enabled by a piece of legislation and are passed by Cabinet, either federal or provincia and and ascented by the GG/LG. Statutory legislation often doesn't have the 'meat and potaoes', like describing a certain make of firearm to be prohibited or the allowable axle weight of trucks, just the authority for Cabinet to make those determinations. They normally appear as Regulations, but all of the emergency orders we have been experiencing are OiCs. This from the Library and Archives Canada:
"A federal Order-in-Council is a legal instrument made by the Governor in Council pursuant to a statutory authority or, less frequently, the royal prerogative. All orders in council are made on the recommendation of the responsible Minister of the Crown and take legal effect only when signed by the Governor General.
Orders-in-Council address a wide range of administrative and legislative matters, from civil service staffing to capital punishment, and from the disposition of Aboriginal lands to the maintenance of the Parliamentary Library."
There are searchable databases, both federal and provincial. That's what I often went to when a new emergency order came down because the pundits and media often got it wrong. unfortunately, probably because of Covid, there can be some delay before they are posted.They are not exactly similar to a US Presidential Executive Order. Our PM alone doesn't have the authority to sit down and write an order; our Executive is Cabinet ('Governor in Council').