- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Andrew Weissmann's intentional ignorance on checks and balances.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Roe v Wade wasn't in the Constitution.
Secondly, that isn't in the Constitution.
TX v PA sure as hell was not in the Constitution.
Opening our borders to illegal immigration to economically and civilly destroy TX is not in the Constitution,
nor is a denial to TX to defend its own borders from foreign invasion in the Constitution.
Where are Special Prosecutors noted in the Constitution? How about wide-eyed mouth foaming Special Prosecutors (who were never endorsed by Congress) indicting ex-POTUSes? Is the latter enabled in the Constitution? Where?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Roe v Wade wasn't in the Constitution
Exactly
quote:
TX v PA sure as hell was not in the Constitution.
The concept of standing is judicial, and granted as an exercise of judicial review. Now, if you want to make the argument Madison v. Marbury was improper, feel free.
quote:
Where are Special Prosecutors noted in the Constitution?
They're granted by statute, which Congress has specifically in the Constitution.
quote:
How about wide-eyed mouth foaming Special Prosecutors (who were never endorsed by Congress) indicting ex-POTUSes? Is the latter enabled in the Constitution? Where?
They're granted by statute, which Congress has specifically in the Constitution.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News