Posted on Jan 8, 2020
4
4
0
the west wing a proportional response
a lesson on chracter and conflict through dialogue - a seminar on aaron sorkin's style in tv serials
After re-reading Article II of the Constitution, specifically the Presidential Oath of Office, for about the millionth time it seems in recent years, it appears clear that the sole and unsalable duty of every President in Section (I) as outlined in that Oath is to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
A Constitution that BTW that starts out with the words "We the people...". NOT "We the male people...; NOT "We the female people....; NOT "We the (enter an ethnicity specific) people...; NOT "We the (enter reference to sex/gender specific) people....; NOT "We the (enter the economic class specific) people..."; NOT "We the (enter a political party/beliefs specific) people...", NOT "We the (enter status FREE or SLAVE or INDENTURED, etc.) people..."; NOT "We the (enter an educational status, uneducated, PhD, etc. ) people; etc. You understand what I am saying..........
The language of "The Founders" was and always has been "We the people..." While some people will argue history, it is just that - history!!! A history that is good, is bad and is ugly. But, the language of the documents is enduring if we have the wisdom and the courage to allow them to be - ENDURING!!! Imperfect men sought to become "...more perfect..." regardless if they understood that at the time or not!
As Richard R. Beeman, Ph.D. writes in his article entitled: PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION: A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT about Benjamin Franklin these words are offered:
"...Benjamin Franklin, ever the optimist even at the age of 81, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention: '…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.' He thought it impossible to expect a 'perfect production' from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, "with all its faults," was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge."
As the nation debates the actions of POTUS regarding the elimination of General Soleimani, I could not help but do, what I like to do and that is to mine data and information. I am presenting two videos for the RP family to deliberate as they feel called to do so with respect for all that will respond to this post.
First, a ~ 2:30 min clip from "The West Wing" regarding a made for TV situation room scenario: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXJRVVgz5aU
Second, a ~ 7:00 min clip from the BBC in Sep 2014 entitled - Soleimani: Is this Iranian the most powerful man in Iraq?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZOXyOAymh8
(https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/war-powers.php) -
Also, we can discuss at great length the 1973 War Powers Act (Public Law 93-148). A law BTW that passed in the Congress despite President Nixon's veto. Furthermore, "...U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch. As a result, the Resolution has been the subject of controversy since its enactment, and is a recurring issue due to the ongoing worldwide commitment of U.S. armed forces. Presidents have submitted a total of over 120 reports to Congress pursuant to the Resolution..."
Finally, here is a Jun 2012 YouTube video of ~ 48:00 min about an interview with Dennis Prager regarding his book entitled "Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph" where he speaks about evil. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9S-gwm-AQM) Your thoughts!
So, my question is simple: Was POTUS justified in taking down Soleimani?
As always, people will differ as they respond to this post. So being factual and respectful remains the order of the day. This discussion beyond the media slants for both right and left is a good thing, because it comes from "We the people..."! Have a good time with this question and be honest!
A Constitution that BTW that starts out with the words "We the people...". NOT "We the male people...; NOT "We the female people....; NOT "We the (enter an ethnicity specific) people...; NOT "We the (enter reference to sex/gender specific) people....; NOT "We the (enter the economic class specific) people..."; NOT "We the (enter a political party/beliefs specific) people...", NOT "We the (enter status FREE or SLAVE or INDENTURED, etc.) people..."; NOT "We the (enter an educational status, uneducated, PhD, etc. ) people; etc. You understand what I am saying..........
The language of "The Founders" was and always has been "We the people..." While some people will argue history, it is just that - history!!! A history that is good, is bad and is ugly. But, the language of the documents is enduring if we have the wisdom and the courage to allow them to be - ENDURING!!! Imperfect men sought to become "...more perfect..." regardless if they understood that at the time or not!
As Richard R. Beeman, Ph.D. writes in his article entitled: PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION: A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT about Benjamin Franklin these words are offered:
"...Benjamin Franklin, ever the optimist even at the age of 81, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention: '…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.' He thought it impossible to expect a 'perfect production' from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, "with all its faults," was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge."
As the nation debates the actions of POTUS regarding the elimination of General Soleimani, I could not help but do, what I like to do and that is to mine data and information. I am presenting two videos for the RP family to deliberate as they feel called to do so with respect for all that will respond to this post.
First, a ~ 2:30 min clip from "The West Wing" regarding a made for TV situation room scenario: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXJRVVgz5aU
Second, a ~ 7:00 min clip from the BBC in Sep 2014 entitled - Soleimani: Is this Iranian the most powerful man in Iraq?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZOXyOAymh8
(https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/war-powers.php) -
Also, we can discuss at great length the 1973 War Powers Act (Public Law 93-148). A law BTW that passed in the Congress despite President Nixon's veto. Furthermore, "...U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch. As a result, the Resolution has been the subject of controversy since its enactment, and is a recurring issue due to the ongoing worldwide commitment of U.S. armed forces. Presidents have submitted a total of over 120 reports to Congress pursuant to the Resolution..."
Finally, here is a Jun 2012 YouTube video of ~ 48:00 min about an interview with Dennis Prager regarding his book entitled "Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph" where he speaks about evil. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9S-gwm-AQM) Your thoughts!
So, my question is simple: Was POTUS justified in taking down Soleimani?
As always, people will differ as they respond to this post. So being factual and respectful remains the order of the day. This discussion beyond the media slants for both right and left is a good thing, because it comes from "We the people..."! Have a good time with this question and be honest!
Office of the President (POTUS)
National Security
Media
Faith
Edited 5 y ago
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 7
3
3
0
2
2
0
An excellent thesis.
My opinion revolves around whether Soleimani a threat to our Constitution. The thoughts and principles of the Constitution have withstood the test of time as the basis of a nation like no other. The greatest threats to that nation have always been generated by short cited departures from those thoughts and principles in the service of a small percentage of the people; the valuable changes are more rooted in the will of the majority or recognition of issues that flaunt basic truths.
Slavery was recognized in the Constitution as a political expediency; the same can be said for suffrage. Modification of those particular issues by amendment made our Constitution stronger. Abolition, on the other hand, reflected the thoughts of a minority and passed in a relatively short time.
Maintaining the lifestyle that flows from the Constitution is defending it. 9/11 proved that the movement that flows from the middle east is a global issue. Soleimani was a integral part of the movement and, just as any army can be impeded by the loss of those who create and communicate the objectives and means of achieving those objectives to the army, Soleimani's elimination represents a loss to the movement that isn't permanent, but is an effective weakening for a time.
The Presidency, unlike Congressmen, is a full time job designed to make decisions on immediate matters and be responsible for those decisions. Our congress has demonstrated time and again that they are to distracted by political considerations to make timely, reactive decision. It was during my time in the service that the fiscal year was changed from July through June to October through September. At the time they had many "facts" that showed the new year would allow the Congress to systematically manage our monies. The continuing resolution is an example of that successful effort. Our current congress has certainly proven its ability to concentrate on the nation's welfare, laying aside partisan concerns.
From all of the above opinions comes my support of the President's decision to weaken a group who threatens our Constitution by eliminating Soleimani and his deputy.
My opinion revolves around whether Soleimani a threat to our Constitution. The thoughts and principles of the Constitution have withstood the test of time as the basis of a nation like no other. The greatest threats to that nation have always been generated by short cited departures from those thoughts and principles in the service of a small percentage of the people; the valuable changes are more rooted in the will of the majority or recognition of issues that flaunt basic truths.
Slavery was recognized in the Constitution as a political expediency; the same can be said for suffrage. Modification of those particular issues by amendment made our Constitution stronger. Abolition, on the other hand, reflected the thoughts of a minority and passed in a relatively short time.
Maintaining the lifestyle that flows from the Constitution is defending it. 9/11 proved that the movement that flows from the middle east is a global issue. Soleimani was a integral part of the movement and, just as any army can be impeded by the loss of those who create and communicate the objectives and means of achieving those objectives to the army, Soleimani's elimination represents a loss to the movement that isn't permanent, but is an effective weakening for a time.
The Presidency, unlike Congressmen, is a full time job designed to make decisions on immediate matters and be responsible for those decisions. Our congress has demonstrated time and again that they are to distracted by political considerations to make timely, reactive decision. It was during my time in the service that the fiscal year was changed from July through June to October through September. At the time they had many "facts" that showed the new year would allow the Congress to systematically manage our monies. The continuing resolution is an example of that successful effort. Our current congress has certainly proven its ability to concentrate on the nation's welfare, laying aside partisan concerns.
From all of the above opinions comes my support of the President's decision to weaken a group who threatens our Constitution by eliminating Soleimani and his deputy.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The oath is his oath of office. The president has far more responsibilities than the oath. The oath is not his "sole and unsaleable duty". It is his oath to the People of the United States.
A sampling of his larger job responsiblitgies.
The President of the United States:
Acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress.
Signing or vetoing legislation
He appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet.
Appoints ambassadors
Nominates judges to the Federal Courts
Responsible as the Chief Law Enforcement officer in the US.
Responsible for the actions of every federal agency under the executive branch.
Just to name a few.
Your answer selections though are incorrectly directed. He is not "JUSTIFIED in taking down this individual as THREAT to global, especially Middle Eastern Safety & Security!" His mission is to do what is in the national security interests of the United states, not global security and middle east safety and security.
He is justified but in the interest of our national security. He is not the president of the world or the middle east. He is the president of the United States only.
A sampling of his larger job responsiblitgies.
The President of the United States:
Acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress.
Signing or vetoing legislation
He appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet.
Appoints ambassadors
Nominates judges to the Federal Courts
Responsible as the Chief Law Enforcement officer in the US.
Responsible for the actions of every federal agency under the executive branch.
Just to name a few.
Your answer selections though are incorrectly directed. He is not "JUSTIFIED in taking down this individual as THREAT to global, especially Middle Eastern Safety & Security!" His mission is to do what is in the national security interests of the United states, not global security and middle east safety and security.
He is justified but in the interest of our national security. He is not the president of the world or the middle east. He is the president of the United States only.
(2)
(0)
CPO Nate S.
Cpl Jeff N. without question POTUS has a larger set of job responsibilities. The oath is the very bedrock of the duties you listed and so much more!!!
Frankly, in order to "...preserve, protect and defend..." He must do all that you listed and more written and unwritten to assure this experiment in self-governance coupled with personal responsibility so it - Endures against "ALL enemies both foreign and domestic."
Frankly, in order to "...preserve, protect and defend..." He must do all that you listed and more written and unwritten to assure this experiment in self-governance coupled with personal responsibility so it - Endures against "ALL enemies both foreign and domestic."
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google