• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Every Presidential Daily Briefing Should Include

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,512
Reaction score
3,958
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Below is an opinion piece which I do believe sums up a great error in our current and former President's thinking. It holds some views which people might disagree with but I believe the one -- which prompted my posting it here -- is something we should all agree on. Below is a single sentence which every President's daily briefing should have as the header;

"You took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not to keep us safe."


What Every Presidential Daily Briefing Should Include - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic


The sooner this President and all future Presidents understand this, the closer to "liberty and justice for all" we shall be.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Below is an opinion piece which I do believe sums up a great error in our current and former President's thinking. It holds some views which people might disagree with but I believe the one -- which prompted my posting it here -- is something we should all agree on. Below is a single sentence which every President's daily briefing should have as the header;

"You took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not to keep us safe."


What Every Presidential Daily Briefing Should Include - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic


The sooner this President and all future Presidents understand this, the closer to "liberty and justice for all" we shall be.
One might argue the two go hand in hand. The Constitution does require that we provide for the common defense. Does that not include safety?
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,731
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
One might argue the two go hand in hand. The Constitution does require that we provide for the common defense. Does that not include safety?



It certainly does.

A lot of people who 'think' that they have all of the answers will never live in the White House.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,512
Reaction score
3,958
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
One might argue the two go hand in hand. The Constitution does require that we provide for the common defense. Does that not include safety?
The key word in this sentence is defense. Taken in a broad view, defense is just as easily seen as not engaging in acts that bring about consequences at home. This administration's two existential threats as they see it are 1. Islamic terrorism; and 2. "Right-wing extremism". The absolutely best way to quash these threats is to 1. Get out of lands we've no business in; and 2. Cease in the activities which take away freedom and liberty from the citizens of these United States.

These are much, much more effective ways to provide for the common defense than any surveillance, targeted assassinations, or preemptive strikes ever will be.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The key word in this sentence is defense. Taken in a broad view, defense is just as easily seen as not engaging in acts that bring about consequences at home. This administration's two existential threats as they see it are 1. Islamic terrorism; and 2. "Right-wing extremism". The absolutely best way to quash these threats is to 1. Get out of lands we've no business in; and 2. Cease in the activities which take away freedom and liberty from the citizens of these United States.

These are much, much more effective ways to provide for the common defense than any surveillance, targeted assassinations, or preemptive strikes ever will be.
Ok, but that isn't what your original post argued. You argued that it is not their job to keep us safe.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,512
Reaction score
3,958
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ok, but that isn't what your original post argued. You argued that it is not their job to keep us safe.
I believe you're not following the context. Which is that the POTUS' job is to uphold and protect the Constitution. The Constitution holds guidelines on what is necessary to keep us safe. It is not the President's job to keep us safe in spite of the Constitution, meaning to do so at its expense. Also, it is not the POTUS's job to "provide for the common defense" to the exclusion of everything else. The disproportionate amount of spending on Defense is such that it can easily be argued that a blinkers on approach to the job as it regards Defense was not the intention of the Constitutions author(s).
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I believe you're not following the context. Which is that the POTUS' job is to uphold and protect the Constitution. The Constitution holds guidelines on what is necessary to keep us safe. It is not the President's job to keep us safe in spite of the Constitution, meaning to do so at its expense. Also, it is not the POTUS's job to "provide for the common defense" to the exclusion of everything else. The disproportionate amount of spending on Defense is such that it can easily be argued that a blinkers on approach to the job as it regards Defense was not the intention of the Constitutions author(s).
I never disagreed with you there. What I am trying to do is get you to explain the position into a manner that is consistent with the Constution and the President's job. But that is not what you did at first.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,512
Reaction score
3,958
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I never disagreed with you there. What I am trying to do is get you to explain the position into a manner that is consistent with the Constution and the President's job. But that is not what you did at first.
You didn't read the article, did you?;)
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I think we've established that you did...:2razz:
Just read the article so you can be happy ;).... That being said, the original quote doesn't fit with reality of what the Constitution calls for. The quote it self should be changed.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,512
Reaction score
3,958
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Just read the article so you can be happy ;).... That being said, the original quote doesn't fit with reality of what the Constitution calls for. The quote it self should be changed.
I can see what you're saying in the letter, but not in the spirit...
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I can see what you're saying in the letter, but not in the spirit...
In the spirit of the article, you and I agree, but, the President's job per the Constitution IS to keep us safe. That is why the quote would need to be changed.
 

soot

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,308
Reaction score
2,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
One might argue the two go hand in hand. The Constitution does require that we provide for the common defense. Does that not include safety?
The Constitution actually charges Congress, not the President, with the power/responsibility to provide for the common defense.

I agree with you that in swearing an oath to protect and defend the Constitution the President has some obligation to facilitate the Congress' ability to fulfill its responsibilities but he has no direct responsibility or obligation on his own to "keep us safe" (if we're interpreting the Congress' responsibility to provide for the common defense as "keeping us safe").

He is granted the power of being Commander in Chief of the "military" (such as it is at the time he is in office, which has changed considerably over time) so that's something, but he's CINC regardless of whether or not the nation is at war and there's nothing in the Constitution that obligates him to "go to war" (another concept that has become more and more ambiguous over time).

In any event, he has an equal, perhaps even greater obligation, to protect and defend the rest of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, which seem to get trampled on the regular by this and the previous administrations.

As the article kinda alludes to, I'm more likely to have my rights infringed on by (and consequently need protection from) my own government than I am by any other existential threat anywhere in the world today.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom