- 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: Seriously Dems, does OMB make you jettison any pretense of constitutional rights?
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:12 am to GumboPot
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:12 am to GumboPot
quote:All the time. For instance, most tort claims arise from common law, rather than legislation.
Have you ever gone to court on the basis of no legislation?
None of that explains the meaning of thie following sentence
quote:
And is there a constitutional clause that invokes the judiciary with no underlying legislation?
This post was edited on 10/10/19 at 9:14 am
1
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:16 am to AggieHank86
quote:
That matter is left up to the legislative body itself. In this particular instance, the legislative body is proceeding in a manner that I might not think is best, but that does not make its actions “unconstitutional.”
This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Fine. Then you apparently agree that executive's stance of fake subpoenas can and will be ignored because, well, they are fake subpoenas.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:18 am to AggieHank86
quote:quote:
None of that explains the meaning of thie following sentence
quote:
And is there a constitutional clause that invokes the judiciary with no underlying legislation?
Then Nancy should take the executive branch to the judiciary for remedy and make them comply with their strongly worded letters.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:19 am to GumboPot
quote:I will not call them “fake subpoenas,” because they do not represent themselves to be subpoenas. They are simply letters of inquiry.
Then you apparently agree that executive's stance of fake subpoenas can and will be ignored because, well, they are fake subpoenas.
Are they enforceable? No, of course not.
But if the committee chairperson chose to issue a subpoena (without even consulting the minority), he or she could do so (under GOP-enacted rules), and that indeed would be enforceable ... to the extent that any congressional subpoena is enforceable.
is the issuance of letters of inquiry rather than subpoenas a bit of political theater? Yes, of course.
This post was edited on 10/10/19 at 9:33 am
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:20 am to AggieHank86
quote:
to the extent that any congressional subpoena is enforceable.
Come at them bro!Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:22 am to AggieHank86
quote:
But if the committee chairperson chose to issue a subpoena (without even consulting the minority), he or she could do so (under GOP-enacted rules), and that indeed would be enforceable ... to the extent that any congressional subpoena is enforceable.
And it's usually enforced by the judiciary. (That's what I mean by "invoke"...probably the wrong term, I'm not a lawyer but grew up surrounded by them...lol).
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:24 am to Jbird
What I have seen from both sides is if the person is doing what you want done. There is no principal that will not be compromised .
The gymnastics Trump supporters bending for him are amazing
He is basically a dullard and spending money like a drunkard
The gymnastics Trump supporters bending for him are amazing
He is basically a dullard and spending money like a drunkard
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:24 am to TBoy
quote:
You mean like the power of Congress to check and investigate the executive?
Let’s do something that’s anathema to libtards and actually look at the Constitution.
“The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
The whole House of Representatives must VOTE to “chuse” the Speaker, other Officers, and Impeachment. Can’t wait for the Judiciary to Constitutionally slap Pelosi down!
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:26 am to Gaspergou202
quote:
The whole House of Representatives
What does that "s" mean?
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:26 am to Tmcgin
quote:
What I have seen from both sides is if the person is doing what you want done. There is no principal that will not be compromised .
The gymnastics Trump supporters bending for him are amazing
He is basically a dullard and spending money like a drunkard
This is a random OMB melt post.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:27 am to GumboPot
Libs are drunk on power and prematurely spiking the football because they think since they have the House, they can change the rules flippantly to get OMB.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:29 am to Summer of George
quote:
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.
Did you see Alan Dershowitz last night on Hannity? He was ripping the House for this charade, but made the point that the check-and-balances as put forth i the Constitution is working as designed: The legislative wants records, the executive says "screw you," and the judiciary arbitrates.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:38 am to Gaspergou202
quote:Aaaaarrrggghhhh!
Let’s do something that’s anathema to libtards and actually look at the Constitution.
“The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
The whole House of Representatives must VOTE to “chuse” the Speaker, other Officers, and Impeachment.
Yes! PLEASE do READ the thing.
It does NOT say that the House shall “vote” to “chuse their Speaker and other leaders.”. They could “chuse” by lottery if they wished, and it WOULD NOT be unconstitutional to do so.
You are doing that which so MANY laymen do. You have formed an opinion, and you are reading words that DO NOT exist in order to support that opinion.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 9:47 am to AggieHank86
quote:
They could “chuse” by lottery if they wished, and it WOULD NOT be unconstitutional to do so.
Specifically "they" are the "House of Representatives".
Not the just Democrat caucus of the House of Representatives to the exclusion of representatives, but the entire House of Representatives.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 10:58 am to GumboPot
Aaaaarrrggghh!
The Constitution does not set forth procedural rules for selection of the Speaker. Again, the House could “chuse” the Speaker by any means it wanted.
As yet another example, the House could vote to form a five person selection committee and have the Speaker appointed by a majority vote of that committee. If the five members were chosen by majority vote of the entire chamber, all would probably be members of the majority party.
The House could pass rules automatically giving the Speakership to the Member who is tallest, shortest, fattest, thinnest, oldest or youngest.
No individual Representative would have had a vote for Speaker under any of these systems, yet they WOULD NOT be unconstitutional.
They might be ill-advised, but not unconstitutional.
The Constitution does not set forth procedural rules for selection of the Speaker. Again, the House could “chuse” the Speaker by any means it wanted.
As yet another example, the House could vote to form a five person selection committee and have the Speaker appointed by a majority vote of that committee. If the five members were chosen by majority vote of the entire chamber, all would probably be members of the majority party.
The House could pass rules automatically giving the Speakership to the Member who is tallest, shortest, fattest, thinnest, oldest or youngest.
No individual Representative would have had a vote for Speaker under any of these systems, yet they WOULD NOT be unconstitutional.
They might be ill-advised, but not unconstitutional.
This post was edited on 10/10/19 at 11:47 am
Posted on 10/10/19 at 12:14 pm to TBoy
Tboy
Tboy
Erin go
GumboPot
No reply from tboy.
Different thread:
tboy
SSpaniel
even aggiehank corrected you
And, finally, to your "i am not paid to post" comment...I dont care how/what you get paid. You have posted 22 times today. WOW!!
quote:
What are you talking about?
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?
Erin go
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.
GumboPot
quote:
ake 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.
No reply from tboy.
Different thread:
tboy
quote:
quote: yet not s single planned parenthood has a mammogram machine. When you lie, you go BIG!
SSpaniel
quote:
Or... not so big? quote: ...(Planned Parenthood President Cecile)Richards said during the hearing that Planned Parenthood clinics do not have mammogram machines. The Federal Drug Administration’s list, updated weekly, of certified mammography facilities does not list any Planned Parenthood clinics. quote: ...comments by Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards’s repeated claim at a Sept. 29 congressional hearing that the organization does not, in fact, offer mammograms or have mammogram machines in its clinics.
even aggiehank corrected you
quote:
yet not s single planned parenthood has a mammogram machine. When you lie, you go BIG! No, he is not. PP’s own website acknowledges that they do not have mammogram machines. They do cancer screenings (such as breast exams), but they provide a referral if that screening suggests a mammogram. Some uninformed abortion supporters almost certainly see “breast cancer screening” and read “mammogram,” exactly like some abortion opponents read one ambiguous sentence in one letter written by Margaret Sanger in a lifetime of written and oral presentations, and extrapolate some nefarious secret agenda for Black genocide. Neither are “liars.”. Both are uninformed.
And, finally, to your "i am not paid to post" comment...I dont care how/what you get paid. You have posted 22 times today. WOW!!
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News