- 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 4:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:bullshite.
I'm only arguing what the Constitution actually says
The Constitution says nothing about the elements you are addressing. Nothing whatsoever. You are simply extrapolating a SCOTUS Constitutional extrapolation applied to the Judiciary, and attempting to carry that extrapolation to the Chief Executive of our government.
Show me where in the Constitution it says a sitting POTUS could be ordered not to attend his son's graduation, or the Yalta/Potsdam Conferences, or Reykjavik Conferences with the Soviet President because some malignant, no-name, bitch of a Judge, with a profiteering daughter, simply said so. Kind of blows "3 equal branches" all to hell, doesn't it?
1
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:34 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The Constitution says nothing about the elements you are addressing.
It literally lays out the separation in impeachment-removal and criminal prosecution. Like, it addresses this topic directly.
quote:
You are simply extrapolating a SCOTUS Constitutional extrapolation applied to the Judiciary, and attempting to carry that extrapolation to the Chief Executive of our government.
The clause applies to everyone subject to impeachment and removal.
The court literally analyzed the clause covering this.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News