Post From KTFA By Memphis » March 16th, 2014, Hey guys, I have a small request...
I have yet to read this thread but there is an article brought by s41755k (sent to my email) that I wish to comment on and would love some official language to add to my post for...punctuation.
If anyone knows the answer or has time to locate it, I am interested in our constitution where it speaks to the limitation placed upon the executive to encumber the US to foreign powers without the consent of the Congress.
Not looking for paragraphs here but a simple sentence (or two) if possible?
Memphis Continues: And, if you'll PM me with the post # (as the subject heading) then I will receive an email alert to come get it!
Thanks in advance for any help! Blessings, Memphis
Post by s41755k » March 16th, 2014, Is this what you are looking for?
The Constitution vests the President with Executive Power. That power reaches its zenith when wielded to protect national security. And federal courts in the United States must pay proper deference to the Executive in assessing the threats that face the nation.
The President is the military's commander-in-chief; however Article One gives Congress and not the President the exclusive right to declare war.
Nevertheless, the power of the president to initiate hostilities has been subject to question. According to historian Thomas Woods, "Ever since the Korean War, [b][size=200]Article II, Section 2 [...] has been interpreted 'The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress'[/size][/b] [....]
But what the framers actually meant by that clause was that once war has been declared, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war.
Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.”
The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack). 
Since World War II, every major military action has been technically a U.S. military operation or a U.N. "police action", which are deemed legally legitimate by Congress, and various United Nations Resolutions because of decisions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the The Resolution of The Congress Providing Authorization for Use of Force In Iraq.
Article 2 Section 2 - of the Constitution
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;
he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,
whose Appointments are not herein other- wise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session Links:
Post by kzh54 » March 16th, 2014 Don't know if any other answers, but this is what I found. Kathy
Article II Section 2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
By contrast, the U.S. Constitution requires that treaties negotiated by the President could not have either international or domestic legal effect without first having obtained advance approval by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
Yet the President’s power to enter into executive agreements with foreign countries is not enumerated in Article II, nor is this power specifically given to Congress.
Memphis wrote on March 15th, 2014,The Key to Everything - Part 6 it's good….
Post by hawger03 » March 16th, 2014, Thank you Memphis for another great post of, IMO, essential information and more clarity.
I have some disagreements but, in general, I have to agree that the world financial system is destined to change. I will not voice my input regarding the Key to Everything as I find it impossible without backing up my opinions with politics being a factor and thus will be removed from the forum.
Instead may I offer a scenario for our nation's recovery. These are just ideas with nothing but my logical and linear thinking to go on.
There will be great hardship for this current generation and how radical that hardship comes upon us and our children depends on how the IMF reforms go down.
With that said, there will be natural economic truths and effects that will promote our recovery as a direct result of the IMF changes. Let's first consider the implications that low currency value brings.
To illustrate I must bring in our nations complaints against China for the past several years concerning the artificially low currency value they have been using. The reason why China would want their currency to be low is to make their exports more competitive on the world market.
Currently, we can buy abnormally large amounts of Chinese goods with our dollar. You see, low value is wonderful for those countries who export more than they import. Now fast forward to the future when the USD has taken it's rightful devaluation.
Based on this theory and teachings from Eagle1, we find that importing goods from other countries becomes far more expensive. If you grasp the fact that the reason we quit manufacturing many of the goods we use today because we were no longer competitive, you will see the direction I am heading.
Our competitive position in manufacturing will be regained if government will stay out of our way. Competitive position is a factor of quality of product and the price to acquire that product.
With our dollar low and the cost to purchase imports high but demand remaining the same, our plants will come to life to, initially, satisfy domestic demand but later to export since our manufacturing costs are new relatively low. We, once again, can become a nation who actually makes things (other than automobiles).
Recovery will come, unemployment will no longer be a problem and with more people working, more tax dollars will flow to fund our semi reigned in government spending which will come as a direct result of our debt instruments being called in.
Public outcry and the come to Jesus meeting with the IMF will make that happen. While it may seem like doom and gloom is on the horizon, there is always a silver lining and better times in the future.
IMO, smart money will be sitting on the sidelines, ready to begin the process of supplying the demands of our nation. Sylvania (I believe) was the last US maker of televisions before the Asian countries , with low currency value and inexpensive labor took that market away.
I'm looking for a Sylvania come back!!! Some dinar holders will become captains of industry as the US regains it's rightful place as world leaders....all IMO of course :) Blessings to you and all our family!
Post by agold » March 16th, 2014, Reading this after Memphis' Key to Everything posts allows one to see the level of commitment and deceit in her speech. The IMF Chief statement that other options are "non-negotiatable" tells how committed they are to their objectives.
This does not mean they will win, it only means they hold that nothing exceeds their power to stop them. Petty dictators throughout history have always held themselves above the people and equal to or above God. (sound familiar?) Thank you Kathy :gracias:
kzh54 wrote on March 16th, 2014, I took the liberty of looking up Christine Legarde's speech regarding multilateralism for those of you who are following Memphis's postings. I found it very interesting. These are excerpts from her speech in London on Feb 3, 2014
Here is the set-up...the problem.
Post by Memphis » March 16th, 2014, Thanks Kathy, this looks like what I am wanting. The sentence reading:
"the U.S. Constitution requires that treaties negotiated by the President could not have either international or domestic legal effect without first having obtained advance approval by a two-thirds vote in the Senate."
But I still have a further question. Is this a direct quote you have provided, I am not clear on that point.
Looking for a quote (from the constitution) with chapter and verse also. Hope that clear.
Thanks also to those who sent me the article but that was already in my email and THE ARTICLE is what prompted my request. Sorry I confused folks. :thug: Blessings, Memphis
Post by kzh54 » March 16th, 2014, CORRECTION
It's a copy/paste from the link provided just above it...not the constitution, but an article from American University Law Review http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf
Copy/paste from Article II, Section 2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; Kathy
Post by Memphis » March 16th, 2014, question, why is the full Congress (both houses) required for passage if a 2/3 senate majority the requirement?
Is it an example of these lawyers circumventing the constitution in that EVEN THO this is in effect a "treaty" they can attach it as an amendment to another aid bill (as is being attempted) and thereby obtain passage with a simple majority? Thoughts? Solid answers? Blessings, Memphis
p.s. I hope to have the article posted late tonight...
Post by JJONESMX » March 16th, 2014, does this help..? JJ :working:
What is the Super Congress?
The term Super Congress refers to a select group of 12 members of both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate chosen to identify ways to reduce the national debt by $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
hawger03 wrote on March 17th, 2014, Memphis, The more I read of Mr. Collins, the deeper my understanding of our changes and as importantly, how it will go down in generalities.
The scenario he lays out is obviously the more preferred gradual decline and seems to be the shaking out of our SDR conversion rate will be the devaluation indicator if that will be published to the masses.
I'm sure they will want to make it seem very "business as usual" so most citizens will not know what is truly happening. I have to believe that we will see large scale inflation over time as a result with quantitative easing off of the table.
I have so many questions about the particulars but not enough space. In any light, I don't understand how there can be a reset without a change in our government spending. To reset, only to see the spending trend continue to lead down the same path is insanity!
I do have to admit that the comment by Marcia Barbier on Mr. Collins thread freaked me out a little. Using SDRs, the Iraqis could pay their debts and pay for their debts to foreign oil companies, thus making the situation less urgent.
I don't consider the SDR in any way changes the fact that Iraq must assign a non-program rate as "in country" currency is a must going into article 8. I also do not believe the rate will be so low as Mr. Collins suggests but none of us really know.....and the wait continues...
Thank you so much Memphis. My eyes are more wide open as a result.
Post by Memphis » March 17th, 2014, hawger, Yes Sir! The mental journey is amazing. I am in no place to "assign homework" here so let me simply propose that if people will follow me thru the balance of posts to come this week and THEN go back and read them all from the beginning with fresh eyes?
They would be rewarded AND AMAZED at how the truths leap off the page at them. Just a thought…
Now, I am lacking time but regarding these words of yours:
"I have so many questions about the particulars but not enough space. In any light, I don't understand how there can be a reset without a change in our government spending. To reset, only to see the spending trend continue to lead down the same path is insanity!"
Do not think that America (and the world) will not slowly, over time, debase their currency's and move away from asset backing in favor of the wide wide world of fiat.
These changes are (I hate repeating myself so often, please indulge me) not a permanent fix. The World is buying time, perhaps decades, but the greed of man is a dynamic that will not be tamed… The cycles….repeat….. Blessings, Memphis