- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: If Trump exercises Article II, Section 3, do you think McConnell will sue?
Posted on 11/18/24 at 1:39 pm to JimEverett
Posted on 11/18/24 at 1:39 pm to JimEverett
You're really grasping at straws.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 1:46 pm to GumboPot
While Trump certainly COULD do it.. SHOULD he do it is an altogether different question. It would be colossally stupid for him to do it. The Republicans have control of the Senate... were he to do this... he'd likely lose their support... and, whether you want to admit it or not... he needs their support for say.. funding... passing laws he wants passed... things like that. The soonest anyone could be primaried is 2 years. He's going to need something before then... and were he to throw a tantrum and do this just to get Gaetz in place (He's really the only one I see being a problem), he would be biting of his nose to spite his face.)
I know y'all think it'd be really neat if he'd do it because he'd really be sticking it to them... but it wouldn't.
Just because you CAN do something doesn't always mean you SHOULD do it.
I know y'all think it'd be really neat if he'd do it because he'd really be sticking it to them... but it wouldn't.
Just because you CAN do something doesn't always mean you SHOULD do it.
This post was edited on 11/18/24 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 11/18/24 at 1:52 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
Just because you CAN do something doesn't always mean you SHOULD do it.
You're right and I get it.
I think the strategy is multifold. First of all Gaetz is an obvious lightening rod. The senate will spend all their political capital on Gaetz. It's going to be a shite show and really fun to watch. Meanwhile the 2nd and third in line at the DOJ will sail under the radar to senate confirmation, Emile Bove and Todd Blanche. These were Trump defense lawyers and these are the guys behind the scenes doing the work. If Gaetz doesn't work out then the senate gets to fight Ken Paxton.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 1:58 pm to GumboPot
quote:
ETA: Article II, Section 3 has been exercised by presidents however the provision allowing the president to adjourn Congress in cases of disagreement over adjournment timing has never been used.
Time to pop the cherry…
Posted on 11/18/24 at 2:01 pm to GumboPot
quote:
First of all Gaetz is an obvious lightening rod.
Come on GP, you're better than this. You've been in weather threads enough to have learned.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 2:08 pm to GumboPot
quote:
If Gaetz doesn't work out then the senate gets to fight Ken Paxton.
I'm perfectly fine with that.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 2:09 pm to Honkus
quote:
Legal.scholars have already weighed in basically saying it would go to the SC.
Good thing we got that locked down amirite
No guarantees on how a justice will vote and this issue is specifically in one of those areas where you cannot expect partisan alignment. Gotta understand too, ripping the seal on this maneuver means the next time the Democrats can pull it off then they're doing it. Unless you don't expect there to be a next time but I'd caution to keep an eye on Langley and the Pentagon in that case.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 2:30 pm to Penrod
quote:
the constitutionally required duty of the Senate to advise and consent.
It's "advise & consent" not "demand & agree".
My thread from last week about the history of Senate "confirmation".
quote:
The Senate has encroached on the Executive Branch powers in regards to appointments.
“The framers of the Constitution granted the Senate and the president shared power to appoint judges and civil officers. That shared power remains in place, but the way in which the Senate has exercised that power has changed over the course of its history.
In its first decade, the Senate established the practice of senatorial courtesy, in which senators expected to be consulted on all nominees to federal posts within their states. This influence over filling federal jobs empowered senators, and many became leaders of the political parties that emerged in the early 19th century. By the late 19th century, however, presidents and senators began to clash over control of these lower level positions, prompting some to call for reform of the nomination process. Reformers who distrusted the power of political parties sought to reduce the number of positions subject to political patronage and the advice and consent of the Senate, pushing instead for legislation expanding the professional civil service. Despite these efforts, as the federal government grew in size in the 20th century, the number of appointments subject to Senate confirmation continued to grow until the 1980s, when Congress passed legislation that has gradually reduced the number of positions requiring confirmation.”
LINK
It started out as Senatorial “courtesy.”
Not Senate “APPROVAL.”
This post was edited on 11/18/24 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 11/18/24 at 2:32 pm to GumboPot
quote:
If Gaetz doesn't work out then the senate gets to fight Ken Paxton.
With the prospect of Gaetz becoming one of their ranks by virtue of appointment to replace SecState Rubio.
4
D
C
H
E
S
S
Posted on 11/18/24 at 2:51 pm to shinerfan
So the authors of the Constitution added "time" just for the hell of it?
Posted on 11/18/24 at 3:06 pm to Penrod
quote:
Penrod
The path for this is LITERLLY IN the Constitution.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 3:25 pm to JimEverett
If the House sets an adjournment date of Jan. 21 and Jan 21 comes and goes without the Senate addressing the issue then there's a disagreement. Your "argument" rests on some sort of distinction between setting an adjournment date on one hand or never, ever, ever adjourning on the other. Most of us are smart enough to grasp that they will eventually adjourn so the date is the only question up for disagreement. Ignoring the other party's adjournment date is a rejection of that date.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 3:56 pm to Houag80
quote:
Do you not understand the constitution, plebe?
He’s one of the closet democrats here masquerading as a moderate republican
Posted on 11/18/24 at 3:58 pm to GumboPot
Read the whole wiki. The days can be stacked.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 3:59 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
RogerTheShrubber
Jeeeeeze, projection much.
It’s been a long but consistent spiral into progressivism for you Roger. Trump absolutely broke you into two. Two figs
Posted on 11/18/24 at 4:05 pm to Sweep Da Leg
quote:
It’s been a long but consistent spiral into progressivism for you Roger
Tariffs and more consumer regulations are progressive.
Youre faaar more down the spectrum than I will ever be.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 4:33 pm to Penrod
quote:
And if it happens SCOTUS will almost certainly overrule it, as they should; it being a blatant attempt to subvert the constitutionally required duty of the Senate to advise and consent.
One OP posted the article of the constitution showing the executive authority, one OP did not. I'll stick with the constitution, not opinion.
Posted on 11/18/24 at 4:38 pm to GumboPot
How often does the Senate go out of session?
Posted on 11/18/24 at 5:09 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
While Trump certainly COULD do it.. SHOULD he do it is an altogether different question. It would be colossally stupid for him to do it. The Republicans have control of the Senate... were he to do this... he'd likely lose their support... and, whether you want to admit it or not... he needs their support for say.. funding... passing laws he wants passed... things like that. The soonest anyone could be primaried is 2 years. He's going to need something before then... and were he to throw a tantrum and do this just to get Gaetz in place (He's really the only one I see being a problem), he would be biting of his nose to spite his face.)
That's parto of the long term plan. To get the uniparty corrupt Republicans to expose themselves. Elon has issued a warning.
Elons money tells Soros money, "hold my beer!"
This time ain't last time!!!!!!
Posted on 11/18/24 at 5:11 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Tariffs and more consumer regulations are progressive.
Youre faaar more down the spectrum than I will ever be.
frick your "spectrum". You can have your spectrum, I'll take Trump's plan!
Popular
Back to top


1






