- 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
Seriously Dems, does OMB make you jettison any pretense of constitutional rights?
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:02 am
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:02 am
You realize that ignoring separation of powers and due process is the stuff of tyrannical shithole countries, right?
You support this?
ETA: we have an authoritarian in the house (as evidenced by a down vote).
You support this?
ETA: we have an authoritarian in the house (as evidenced by a down vote).
This post was edited on 10/10/19 at 8:04 am
7
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:03 am to GumboPot
Anyone still putting faith in a piece of paper is pissing in the wind. Look around at America - we live under a judicial tyranny and the only way out is a strong man president or peaceful separation.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:04 am to GumboPot
and the suppression of ANY input from the opposition is positively Maoist!
naked power grab
naked power grab
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:06 am to GumboPot
You mean like the power of Congress to check and investigate the executive? The constitution places that power directly in the House. That is what separation of powers is all about. Trump does not have absolute power.
What’s OP’s point here?
What’s OP’s point here?
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:08 am to TBoy
quote:
You mean like the power of Congress to check and investigate the executive? The constitution places that power directly in the House. That is what separation of powers is all about. Trump does not have absolute power.
What’s OP’s point here?
frick you
Shutting out the opposition party has NEVER BEEN a part of that
NEVER
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:08 am to GumboPot
Anyone condoning the actions of the Democrats in power right now clearly doesn't understand their play. This rush to impeachment over made up charges on a phone call where the transcript was already released is just a final, flailing attempt to get things moving, no matter the charge.
This way, once Durham and anyone else with the hammer brings the pendulum back toward the side of justice, then they can scream "political retaliation", and likely "election interference" when some of the casualties of their previous crimes ends up being folks who are running for POTUS on the left.
Never mind the fact that 3/4 of the Dem field is just running because they erroneously think it will buy them cover.
This way, once Durham and anyone else with the hammer brings the pendulum back toward the side of justice, then they can scream "political retaliation", and likely "election interference" when some of the casualties of their previous crimes ends up being folks who are running for POTUS on the left.
Never mind the fact that 3/4 of the Dem field is just running because they erroneously think it will buy them cover.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:08 am to GumboPot
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:10 am to TBoy
quote:
You mean like the power of Congress to check and investigate the executive?
Loses some of it's impact when you realize not all of congress is being allowed to participate.
Comes across as more of a vindictive undertaking.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:11 am to TBoy
Sleepy joe wants Trump impeached because of what he might do.... let that sink in.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:11 am to TBoy
quote:
You mean like the power of Congress to check and investigate the executive? The constitution places that power directly in the House. That is what separation of powers is all about. Trump does not have absolute power.
What’s OP’s point here?
Take a vote to invoke the judiciary then the inquiry is official. As it stands now there is no resolution (i.e., legislation) for the judiciary to rule on and enforce subpoenas.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:12 am to GumboPot
I forgot who OMB is. Can you just put it in the first post and then abbreviate. Thanks.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:13 am to VoxDawg
quote:Giving yourself an out, I see
This way, once Durham and anyone else with the hammer brings the pendulum back toward the side of justice, then they can scream "political retaliation", and likely "election interference" when some of the casualties of their previous crimes ends up being folks who are running for POTUS on the left.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:14 am to 6R12
quote:
I forgot who OMB is. Can you just put it in the first post and then abbreviate. Thanks.
Orange Man Bad.
It's pretty well known.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:19 am to TBoy
quote:
What’s OP’s point here?
TBoy,
i have seen you in 2 threads this am. in both, you were told/proven to be completely wrong. then, predictably, you disappeared. do you really enjoy being shown to be completely wrong? Or, at which point do you consider a change in thought? Or, you are a troll?
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:26 am to GumboPot
In context, I must assume that this post/thread relates to the subpoenas (or letters) being issued by house Democrat leaders.
This issue is not a matter of “separation of powers.” It is purely a matter of House rules.
The GOP has no one to blame but itself. This entire argument about subpoenas issued by committee chairpersons could not have arisen prior to 2010, because a chairperson did not have any such right prior to that time. Any committee subpoena had to be approved by a majority vote of each committee.
What changed in 2010? The GOP house leadership changed the rules. Dems screamed and whined and fought the change, just like the GOP is now screaming and whining about its use by Dems. LINK
in past impeachment investigations, rules were adopted which provided minority members the ability to issue subpoenas, in addition to subpoenas approved by a majority vote of each committee. That is not a constitutional or statutory requirement. It was simply a matter of House rules and tradition. It is/was a good practice, but NOT a matter of “constitutionality.”.
This issue is not a matter of “separation of powers.” It is purely a matter of House rules.
The GOP has no one to blame but itself. This entire argument about subpoenas issued by committee chairpersons could not have arisen prior to 2010, because a chairperson did not have any such right prior to that time. Any committee subpoena had to be approved by a majority vote of each committee.
What changed in 2010? The GOP house leadership changed the rules. Dems screamed and whined and fought the change, just like the GOP is now screaming and whining about its use by Dems. LINK
in past impeachment investigations, rules were adopted which provided minority members the ability to issue subpoenas, in addition to subpoenas approved by a majority vote of each committee. That is not a constitutional or statutory requirement. It was simply a matter of House rules and tradition. It is/was a good practice, but NOT a matter of “constitutionality.”.
This post was edited on 10/10/19 at 9:03 am
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:26 am to VoxDawg
quote:
Anyone condoning the actions of the Democrats in power right now clearly doesn't understand their play. This rush to impeachment over made up charges on a phone call where the transcript was already released is just a final, flailing attempt to get things moving, no matter the charge.
This way, once Durham and anyone else with the hammer brings the pendulum back toward the side of justice, then they can scream "political retaliation", and likely "election interference" when some of the casualties of their previous crimes ends up being folks who are running for POTUS on the left.
Never mind the fact that 3/4 of the Dem field is just running because they erroneously think it will buy them cover.
I know this is related to the current goings-on however it should be viewed separate and distinct. The desperation has made Nancy throw out all constitutional norms:
1. Separation of powers.
2. Freedom of speech.
3. Due process - the right to a defense and the right to face your accuser.
These are constitutional norms and we have people in at the highest levels of government that are running "roughshod" over them. Norms that are given to the lowest of low in our society.
This is quite unusual and unprecedented.
They have to be playing off the ignorance of the American electorate. I believe Nancy understands this which makes it more sinister.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:29 am to TBoy
quote:
You mean like the power of Congress to check and investigate the executive? The constitution places that power directly in the House. That is what separation of powers is all about. Trump does not have absolute power. What’s OP’s point here?
The executive has rights tard. This is how it works. The legislative branch subpoenas, the executive branch says frick off we have rights to witness and due process. The judiciary then weighs in. Let’s go to court and present the cases not just a free for all smear campaign. Checks and balances mother fricker.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:30 am to AggieHank86
In the context of the "impeachment inquiry" there have only been strongly worded letters issued under the guise of a subpoena. No enforceable subpoena's have been issued.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:34 am to TBoy
quote:
The constitution places that power directly in the House.
Who is implying it isn't numb nuts? If we gonna follow the document, let's not pick and choose, so vote to impeach or STFU... it really is that simple...
This post was edited on 10/10/19 at 8:36 am
Posted on 10/10/19 at 8:40 am to The Maj
quote:please link to the specific Constitutional clause which provides a requirement that the House hold a vote in order to open an impeachment inquiry. I will wait.quote:Who is implying it isn't numb nuts? If we gonna follow the document, let's not pick and choose, so vote to impeach or STFU... it really is that simple...
The constitution places that power directly in the House.
OK, I have waited long enough. No such Clause exists. It has historically been done that way, but that is tradition rather than.Constitutional requirement. I think that it is a good practice, but it is simply tradition ... nothing more.
This post was edited on 10/10/19 at 8:41 am
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News