Jump to content
Nature Boy 2.0

Removing nuclear launch powers from President Biden would be 'wildly unconstitutional': Mike Lee

 Share

21 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

What am I missing here? Bizarre or is fox making it to be something other than it appears? 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nuclear-launch-code-power-changed-joe-biden-mike-lee

 

Democrats sent a letter urging president to give up sole power over launch codes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thirty-one House Democrats signed the letter, including Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Illhan Omar (D-MO). The letter also offered four alternatives to vesting the sole power to launch a nuclear weapon in the office of the president. It proposed allowing the Vice President and speaker of the House “to concur with a launch order, utilizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s tracking of those officials to ensure prompt communication.”

Another proposal suggested that the President seek approval from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff and the attorney general. The third suggestion would put power on Congressional hands and force the President to seek its approval. The fourth would have the most far reaching consequences. “Creating a permanent active council of congressional leaders that would regularly participate in deliberations with the executive branch on vital national security issues and mandate some portion of the council be consulted before the first use of nuclear weapons.”

 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjp57d/democrats-ask-biden-to-give-up-his-unilateral-power-to-launch-nukes

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: IR-1/CR-1 Visa Country: Canada
Timeline
17 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  You are getting your news from FOX. It's like getting your nutritional information from Chef Boyardee. That's all it is.

I would tweak the analogy, getting your news from Fox only is like getting your bodily nutrition from Chef Boyardee 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline
2 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Chef Boyardee 

= one of the major food groups

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline
37 minutes ago, B_J said:

Thirty-one House Democrats signed the letter, including Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Illhan Omar (D-MO). The letter also offered four alternatives to vesting the sole power to launch a nuclear weapon in the office of the president. It proposed allowing the Vice President and speaker of the House “to concur with a launch order, utilizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s tracking of those officials to ensure prompt communication.”

Another proposal suggested that the President seek approval from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff and the attorney general. The third suggestion would put power on Congressional hands and force the President to seek its approval. The fourth would have the most far reaching consequences. “Creating a permanent active council of congressional leaders that would regularly participate in deliberations with the executive branch on vital national security issues and mandate some portion of the council be consulted before the first use of nuclear weapons.”

 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjp57d/democrats-ask-biden-to-give-up-his-unilateral-power-to-launch-nukes

It seems they are either still living in the past (i.e. in the Trump administration), or they have some issues with Old Joe's mental fitness.  The article is a little misleading, the Left was saying the same thing about Reagan, and neither Trump or Reagan ever launched a nuclear weapon.  Heck, Trump didn't even start any new wars.  Yeah, it is always better to respond to a nuclear attack by getting a committee to agree. 

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  You are getting your news from FOX. It's like getting your nutritional information from Chef Boyardee. That's all it is.

Ha Ha but serious. Whats your take on this ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Ha Ha but serious. Whats your take on this ?

 

  Actually,  I never thought having the president solely responsible for nuclear launch codes was a great idea anyway. IIRC, back in the day, the secretary of defense had to second the launch order, but was not allowed to stop it. Not sure if it is different now. 

995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline
5 hours ago, B_J said:

Thirty-one House Democrats signed the letter, including Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Illhan Omar (D-MO). The letter also offered four alternatives to vesting the sole power to launch a nuclear weapon in the office of the president. It proposed allowing the Vice President and speaker of the House “to concur with a launch order, utilizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s tracking of those officials to ensure prompt communication.”

Another proposal suggested that the President seek approval from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff and the attorney general. The third suggestion would put power on Congressional hands and force the President to seek its approval. The fourth would have the most far reaching consequences. “Creating a permanent active council of congressional leaders that would regularly participate in deliberations with the executive branch on vital national security issues and mandate some portion of the council be consulted before the first use of nuclear weapons.”

 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjp57d/democrats-ask-biden-to-give-up-his-unilateral-power-to-launch-nukes

th?id=OIP.uHgPKB-n7hkBliqFbDV5JgHaFj&pid

* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Actually,  I never thought having the president solely responsible for nuclear launch codes was a great idea anyway. IIRC, back in the day, the secretary of defense had to second the launch order, but was not allowed to stop it. Not sure if it is different now. 

I would guess that nobody is going to launch nuclear them  unless there is a darn good reason, regardless of what the prez says

Edited by Nature Boy 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Actually,  I never thought having the president solely responsible for nuclear launch codes was a great idea anyway. IIRC, back in the day, the secretary of defense had to second the launch order, but was not allowed to stop it. Not sure if it is different now. 

Except that he isn't the sole person that authorizes a launch.  There has to be at least two people with multiple steps in between. So any step in the cog can say no they don't want to follow that order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Except that he isn't the sole person that authorizes a launch.  There has to be at least two people with multiple steps in between. So any step in the cog can say no they don't want to follow that order.

 

  What officer says no because they don't want to follow an order? 

995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  What officer says no because they don't want to follow an order? 

So you are echoing what Nazis said as well at Nuremburg. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline

The most tense period will be between the time when they realize that they should 25th-Amendment Biden and the time when they actually do 25th-Amendment Biden.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

So you are echoing what Nazis said as well at Nuremburg. 


   No, I am not offering a court defense or justifying actions. I am telling you a fact. The President authorizes the launch, Pentagon confirms, officers follow orders.

 

   The end sequence requires 2 officers (out of 5) in order to launch. You are imagining a scenario where 4 out of 5 officers would have to not follow orders. It would not likely ever happen in reality.

995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...