Help me know what I should look for there. Is it the snippet of a quote that begins, “I don’t want a sound bite of it reported”?
Because you’re kind of setting yourself up here.
Edit: here’s the source. He was talking about the Constitution only in oblique terms. Using this to suggest liberals hate the constitution is contemptible bullshit.
I’ll elaborate it on it further if you’d like. My preference would be for the Congress to not cede so much authority to the executive branch. It’s a process that has gone on for decades, and I find it lamentable.
I don’t think Pelosi believes the same, at least not in any sincere, lasting way. She may have some fleeting fascination with it (similar to many liberals’ current, but i suspect fleeting, fascination with states rights) but that’s just a matter of political convenience for her (and them) right now, with President Trump. When Obama was President, I don’t recall her taking any politically-courageous stands against presidential power. Perhaps you have some examples you’d like to offer up?
I know the goalposts have been moved from Lambeau Field to Arrowhead stadium in this thread, but I still want to clarify your position on this point:
“Does”* or “does not”* the Constitution require the President to either appoint (“hire”, to use a more modern expression) Ann Coulter or appoint (“hire”) someone with the authority to appoint Ann Coulter (say, a Chief of Staff) so Ann Coulter can then negotiate on behalf of the Executive Branch of the United States of America?
*Two words at max, that’s all I need. Any word that follows is disqualifying.
Except that McConnell has, effectively, ceded complete control of the Legislative branch to her: According to him, the Senate will do nothing until the Democrats and Trump agree on something. She is negotiating for the full legislature at the GOP’s invitation.
And that will have great credibility coming from a man who immediately walked out of a meeting to discuss the shutdown because the other side wouldn’t give him everything he wanted right away.
To repeat:
It was the DHS itself that previously categorized the SOTU as an event requiring special security measures.
The departments that provide those security measures are currently affected by the government shutdown.
So what Pelosi said remains entirely true. That Nielsen responded after the fact that the DHS could provide unpaid security for an non-time-critical event that, remember, Pelosi wasn’t suggesting should be cancelled but rather postponed to a time a few weeks later when the government was back in operation doesn’t change either the truth or the rationale for what she said.
The government can also “handle” flying Melania to Mar-a-Lago, because the President can use his office to demand a variety of services despite the shutdown. That you think that Pelosi is the one this reflects poorly on is, of course, just your opinion, man.
While I would not recommend or condone it, I’ll take a liberal literally shitting on the Constitution over Trump and the rest of the conservatives figuratively shitting on it.
One is an exercise of rights, the other is denying of rights.
Based on your method of argument by cherry picking, should I say that conservatives have a habit of having armed confrontations with the government, taking over federal buildings and land, and even blowing up federal buildings when they don’t like what the government is doing?
I’ll take a peaceful protest that results in a slight biohazard over the violence that conservatives have a habit of using to voice their displeasure.
Right, and that happened when McConnell ceded the authority of the senate to the executive branch by refusing to bring a bill to the floor unless he agreed to sign it.
That doesn’t make Pelosi constitutionally equal to Trump.
Putting the other arguments aside and assuming that the Executive and Legislative Branches have absolutely equal power, the President IS the executive branch. He controls it by his say so.
Pelosi is the leader of one of the two houses of the legislative branch. She can enact nothing on her own. As you are aware, she must get a majority of her House to approve legislation, have the Senate, which is currently in the hands of the other party and unlikely to approve her directives, approve it with a majority (more likely 60 votes) and then the President again has to approve it. If he does not, she needs 2/3ds of her House and again 2/3ds of the Senate.
I think it is clear that the Constitution does not say that she is equal to the President anymore than Mike Pence, by virtue of being President of the Senate, is equal to the President. And neither can say that they are 50% equal to the President because unlike either of them, the President does not rely on a vote to conduct executive functions.
I think HD was envisioning a hypothetical scenario where Pelosi and Schumer try to work out something directly with Ann Coulter (as a third party) to see what she could stomach, and then just wait for the next Fox&Friends update that tells Trump how he’s supposed to think for the day.
Which is completely different than Trump personally empowering Coulter to negotiate on his behalf. Can we stop this tangent now?
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!
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.
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.
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.