[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
You can’t spend six years wiping your butt with the Constitution and then hide behind it when you think it serves your purpose . . .
[/QUOTE]
Of course you can, Bob. There is no lack of precedent.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
What I’ve been wondering lately is, how would such a disagreement between the two branches work out in practice, short of impeachment?
[/QUOTE]
It’s *supposed * to be worked out among adults with senses of responsibility to the nation, who recognize that sense in each other regardless of different views about how to carry it out, all in the spirit of willing compromise.
The departments’ inability to disburse funds they don’t have, for which institutional systems are in place. There’s also the myriad suppliers’ refusal to ship product for which they know the checks are going to bounce.
So is Humpy ever gonna come back and face the music?
I have to say, I love these threads he starts, but the ending is always a bit of a repeat-and-fade letdown.
Someone needs to keep track of how many Clothahump’s attempted pittings have gone down in flames and chuckles.
[QUOTE=Apos]
Someone needs to keep track of how many Clothahump’s attempted pittings have gone down in flames and chuckles.
[/QUOTE]
I just did a search for all the Pit threads started by Clothahump, and got thirty results.
So I’m going to guess the answer to your question is, “Thirty.”
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
So is Humpy ever gonna come back and face the music?
I have to say, I love these threads he starts, but the ending is always a bit of a repeat-and-fade letdown.
[/QUOTE]
He did – he came back and repeated the assertions in his OP. What more do you want?
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
He did – he came back and repeated the assertions in his OP. What more do you want?
[/QUOTE]
Besides a pony?
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
Besides a pony?
[/QUOTE]
You’re gonna have to hold off on that. Clothahump’s still working on the pile…
[QUOTE=jayjay]
In the kingdom of the microcephalic, the lobotomized man is king. Hence, clothahump’s rabid partisanship of George W.
[/QUOTE]
Ya know, this gets old. I have stated before that GWB is on my shit list, but nobody seems to care as long as they get to run their mouth - incorrectly - about how much I love him and all that.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Ya know, this gets old. I have stated before that GWB is on my shit list, but nobody seems to care as long as they get to run their mouth - incorrectly - about how much I love him and all that.
[/QUOTE]
Okay. I will retract the last part of that when you explain, with the additional insight that 3 (4?) pages of thread with posts from actual lawyers who know the law and Constitution a thousand times better than you do gives, why what Congress did was so wrong?
I cannot operate a message board and need my posting license revoked…
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
. . . As has been mentioned before in this thread, Bush’s power as Commander-in-Chief doesn’t entitle him to control absolutely everything about the military, with Congress’ only role to provide him with exactly the money he demands with no strings attached in any way. Congress is an equal branch of government, not the executive’s lapdog.
[/QUOTE]
Never said they were. What I did say, for the comprehension-challenged among us (which seems to be damn near everybody on this board), was that Congress attempted to usurp part of the President’s half of the pie.
Professor Gerald Treece of the South Texas College of Law in Houston had made this point repeatedly. Professor Treece is a well-recognized constitutional law scholar. His comment on the radio a couple of days ago was to the effect that even a C- law student would recognize the bill as unconstitutional, it was that blatant.
And I gotta wonder, folks. I’m not a law student, and I recognized the bill as unconstitutional and why it was unconstitutional. Why didn’t you? Why weren’t you complaining about the actions of Congress in passing that bill? Hmmm?
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
At least he returned (however briefly) to this one to try to defend his view. He usually rushes right off to re-wrap his lips around GWB’s cock and never makes it back to the thread.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for posting this message in support of my stance.
Maybe one of these days, you (and everyone else) might learn that resorting to ad hominem attacks is an open declaration that you cannot refute what was said, so you resort to attacking the person who said it. But I doubt it.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is some industrial grade stupid. We’re gonna need the brush with the wire bristles for this one.
I don’t think it’s that Clothahump likes Bush so much. It’s that a liberal must have shot his dog at some point, because he hates them with a passion unblemished by reason.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Never said they were. What I did say, for the comprehension-challenged among us (which seems to be damn near everybody on this board), was that Congress attempted to usurp part of the President’s half of the pie.
Professor Gerald Treece of the South Texas College of Law in Houston had made this point repeatedly. Professor Treece is a well-recognized constitutional law scholar. His comment on the radio a couple of days ago was to the effect that even a C- law student would recognize the bill as unconstitutional, it was that blatant.
And I gotta wonder, folks. I’m not a law student, and I recognized the bill as unconstitutional and why it was unconstitutional. Why didn’t you? Why weren’t you complaining about the actions of Congress in passing that bill? Hmmm?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Bricker, what is your excuse, anyway? Just another of your liberal kneejerks, I suspect. Fuckin’ pinko.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Professor Gerald Treece of the South Texas College of Law in Houston had made this point repeatedly. Professor Treece is a well-recognized constitutional law scholar. His comment on the radio a couple of days ago was to the effect that even a C- law student would recognize the bill as unconstitutional, it was that blatant.
[/QUOTE]
-
Let’s see a cite/link for that.
-
John Yoo, author of the “unitary executive” theory, is also a law-school prof. That doesn’t mean the theory isn’t pernicious bullshit; it is.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Professor Gerald Treece of the South Texas College of Law in Houston had made this point repeatedly.
[/QUOTE]
I think I saw an ad for this “college” on the back of a matchbook cover.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
And I gotta wonder, folks. I’m not a law student, and I recognized the bill as unconstitutional and why it was unconstitutional. Why didn’t you? Why weren’t you complaining about the actions of Congress in passing that bill? Hmmm?
[/QUOTE]
I gotta go back to this.
You’re not a law student, but you could tell that the law was clearly unconstitutional.
Actual lawyers have said that it isn’t.
And we’re supposed to listen to you instead of them because…?
[QUOTE=Frostillicus]
I think I saw an ad for this “college” on the back of a matchbook cover.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it is on the list of law schools approved by the American Bar Association, FWIW.