Given it was brought out as a realistic means for the government to resolve the dispute which is the basis of the actions discussed in this thread, I am quite fine continuing the “tangent” as to what the Constitution has to say about delegated authorities and their ability to resolve the impasse which will allow the SOTU to continue in a manner agreeable to both parties. Appreciate the advice though!
OK, octopus, next question: Do you believe that it is a good thing for people to be able to vote?
I neither agree or disagree with this. I just thought HD was making poor arguments.
I’d call such people awful human beings if doing so didn’t leave me bereft of something to call those who support torturing prisoners and murdering their families.
A “unitary Executive” man, I see. :rolleyes:
ETA: If this was true, none of that 277-page decision the other day about the Census citizenship question would mean a thing. If the President controls the Executive Branch by his say-so, then if he says there’s a citizenship question, then there is a citizenship question. And presumably the same would be true for Wilbur Ross acting on his authority.
Since all that is off topic I’ll send you a pm.
Jesus Christ you can’t answer that simple question publicly? Do you think people voting is bad?
I did not claim that the executive was a king and could order absolutely anything he wanted. I said that within the purview of what are executive powers, he has the sole and final say so.
The citizenship question on the census case is because litigants are claiming that asking such a question violates other portions of the Constitution and, if they are correct, such a thing would not be a legitimate executive function.
That’s where the judiciary comes in as the third branch and makes decisions on who gets what power. But once it is determined that the power is executive, it is the President’s call to make. When it is determined that a certain power is legislative, then Congress as a whole must decide, not Pelosi, or McConnell, or Pence.
So why hasn’t he fired Mueller himself?
If your point is that he’s legally allowed to do whatever he’s legally allowed to do, well, there’s no real argument there.
It is undisputed that he has the power to fire Mueller. I think his cabinet has talked him out of it.
That is not my point. My point was in response to the suggestion that Pelosi and Trump are constitutionally equal. Even if we assume that the Executive and the Legislative branches are completely co-equal, then we cannot say that the person who has absolute authority over one branch is constitutionally equal to someone in the other branch who has far less than absolute authority over that branch.
I know it pains you to say that Pelosi was wrong, but this point is so non-debatable that I cannot believe anything is arguing to the contrary.
Also wrong. Are you sure you’re a lawyer?
The thing that’s tripping up the Census question isn’t the Constitution, according to the district judge; it’s the Administrative Procedure Act. And the argument the judge is making in his decision isn’t that the Executive can’t add that question. It’s that it can’t just go around making those decisions arbitrarily. The law places requirements and limitations on how the Executive makes many of its decisions.
Pelosi said something that was not true? Guess she needs to say another 6000 false statements to match Trump.
It’s an incredibly silly argument. For all we know Pelosi was saying that the constitution considers all Americans equal. Or that every citizen has an equal vote. Or whatever.
Also, it doesn’t matter. Not when the groper/toddler-in-chief is “governing” by tantrum, the Senate is enabling him, many folks are working without pay or not working at all, and only the House is actually taking action to end the shutdown.
The reporting on the matter was:
I think it’s pretty obvious she wasn’t just talking in some philosophical all-men-are-created-equal sense.
So what? Are you going to take her to court over a turn of phrase when talking about the new Democratic House majority? What do you see as the likely results of this gotcha ya that you’ve so deftly uncovered? Will she be removed from the speakership? Arrested?
No, we’ll have a laugh at her expense, and some liberals will get their panties in a twist over it. I consider it roughly on par with the various posts about Trump’s typos. Neither one is exactly an impeachable offense.
So it means nothing?
So can we all consider this dropped then? Unless you want to get into a back and forth of ridiculous things said, in which case I’m going to go get some covfefe and hamberders because at last count Trump is up to 7,645 false or misleading statements as of Dec. 30th.
Nice attempt to pivot to “typos” for Trump as if everything he says is true he just misspells a word sometimes.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Yesterday, Senator Lindsay Graham called Pelosi’s letter on the SOTU (the original topic of this thread) a “sophomoric response”. Do you more-or-less agree that it was a rather childish / petty / juvenile / etc act?
No. Why do I give a shit what Lindsay Graham has to say. That is a political response. You’ve already made clear that you don’t give those much weight right? Or is that only for political responses from one side?