It's Time For Trump To Exercise His Article 2 Powers

[OKTexas]

The President, under Article 2, Section 3 has the authority to convene one or both houses of Congress in extraordinary circumstances. He could use these powers to keep Congress in DC instead of leaving to go home.

Article 2, Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

I think this qualifies as an extraordinary occasion. Your thoughts?

Building a wall that wont work is not an extraordinary occasion. Those are my thoughts.

Tell that to the folks going without pay. It's time congress stays in town and does their job.

.

The House did do their job. They passed a bill. In the senate it sits.

So tell the class how many show votes are planned. This is reminiscent of the republican votes to abolish the ACA, knowing it would go no where in the senate, what was you opinion then?

.

Are you saying the Senate will never reopen the government? Interesting.

No.

.

 

[OKTexas]

The President, under Article 2, Section 3 has the authority to convene one or both houses of Congress in extraordinary circumstances. He could use these powers to keep Congress in DC instead of leaving to go home.

Article 2, Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

I think this qualifies as an extraordinary occasion. Your thoughts?

Building a wall that wont work is not an extraordinary occasion. Those are my thoughts.

Tell that to the folks going without pay. It's time congress stays in town and does their job.

.

The House did do their job. They passed a bill. In the senate it sits.

So tell the class how many show votes are planned. This is reminiscent of the republican votes to abolish the ACA, what was you opinion then?

.

Dunno. But you can’t say the Congress isn’t doing it’s job. The House has. The Senate is not so far.

What always tickles me is that if you’re a republican senator and you’re 100% sure the GOP voters in your state want this wall; what is the “danger” in voting against the House Bill? Why do you need shielding? You should be telling the Majority Leader to schedule the vote so you can do what you were elected to do, vote on bills; negotiate what you think is a better deal, and move on to the next issue facing the nation.

The same question could have been asked about the crap Harry Reid pulled with the ACA votes. But, in that case, it turns out the GOP was not ready to repeal the ACA after all. I don’t think we have that issue with the wall from the Democrats.

Actually the republicans put an ACA bill on maobamas desk, he vetoed it. What's the point of McConnell doing the same? They're saying palousey is planning 6 more show votes next week. McConnell said he put a bill the president will sign for a vote. It will only take 7 dems breaking ranks to put this all on palousey.

.

 

[candycorn]

Building a wall that wont work is not an extraordinary occasion. Those are my thoughts.

Tell that to the folks going without pay. It's time congress stays in town and does their job.

.

The House did do their job. They passed a bill. In the senate it sits.

So tell the class how many show votes are planned. This is reminiscent of the republican votes to abolish the ACA, what was you opinion then?

.

Dunno. But you can’t say the Congress isn’t doing it’s job. The House has. The Senate is not so far.

What always tickles me is that if you’re a republican senator and you’re 100% sure the GOP voters in your state want this wall; what is the “danger” in voting against the House Bill? Why do you need shielding? You should be telling the Majority Leader to schedule the vote so you can do what you were elected to do, vote on bills; negotiate what you think is a better deal, and move on to the next issue facing the nation.

The same question could have been asked about the crap Harry Reid pulled with the ACA votes. But, in that case, it turns out the GOP was not ready to repeal the ACA after all. I don’t think we have that issue with the wall from the Democrats.

Actually the republicans put an ACA bill on maobamas desk, he vetoed it. What's the point of McConnell doing the same? They're saying palousey is planning 6 more show votes next week. McConnell said he put a bill the president will sign for a vote. It will only take 7 dems breaking ranks to put this all on palousey.

.

The point is that the voters know where their elected officials stand. Either you are proud of them or not. But the people we elect should never be able to hide behind their majority leader or Speaker of the House to avoid taking a stand and voting.

It also records what was rejected so that when a deal (also if a deal) is finally made, you can see who caved, who changed, what was modified. Etc…

 

[OKTexas]

Tell that to the folks going without pay. It's time congress stays in town and does their job.

.

The House did do their job. They passed a bill. In the senate it sits.

So tell the class how many show votes are planned. This is reminiscent of the republican votes to abolish the ACA, what was you opinion then?

.

Dunno. But you can’t say the Congress isn’t doing it’s job. The House has. The Senate is not so far.

What always tickles me is that if you’re a republican senator and you’re 100% sure the GOP voters in your state want this wall; what is the “danger” in voting against the House Bill? Why do you need shielding? You should be telling the Majority Leader to schedule the vote so you can do what you were elected to do, vote on bills; negotiate what you think is a better deal, and move on to the next issue facing the nation.

The same question could have been asked about the crap Harry Reid pulled with the ACA votes. But, in that case, it turns out the GOP was not ready to repeal the ACA after all. I don’t think we have that issue with the wall from the Democrats.

Actually the republicans put an ACA bill on maobamas desk, he vetoed it. What's the point of McConnell doing the same? They're saying palousey is planning 6 more show votes next week. McConnell said he put a bill the president will sign for a vote. It will only take 7 dems breaking ranks to put this all on palousey.

.

The point is that the voters know where their elected officials stand. Either you are proud of them or not. But the people we elect should never be able to hide behind their majority leader or Speaker of the House to avoid taking a stand and voting.

It also records what was rejected so that when a deal (also if a deal) is finally made, you can see who caved, who changed, what was modified. Etc…

We actually agree, but your fellow regressive think palouseys NO is just fine, even when cracks are forming in the house. Hoyer admitted walls are not immoral and work in appropriate places.

.

 

[candycorn]

The House did do their job. They passed a bill. In the senate it sits.

So tell the class how many show votes are planned. This is reminiscent of the republican votes to abolish the ACA, what was you opinion then?

.

Dunno. But you can’t say the Congress isn’t doing it’s job. The House has. The Senate is not so far.

What always tickles me is that if you’re a republican senator and you’re 100% sure the GOP voters in your state want this wall; what is the “danger” in voting against the House Bill? Why do you need shielding? You should be telling the Majority Leader to schedule the vote so you can do what you were elected to do, vote on bills; negotiate what you think is a better deal, and move on to the next issue facing the nation.

The same question could have been asked about the crap Harry Reid pulled with the ACA votes. But, in that case, it turns out the GOP was not ready to repeal the ACA after all. I don’t think we have that issue with the wall from the Democrats.

Actually the republicans put an ACA bill on maobamas desk, he vetoed it. What's the point of McConnell doing the same? They're saying palousey is planning 6 more show votes next week. McConnell said he put a bill the president will sign for a vote. It will only take 7 dems breaking ranks to put this all on palousey.

.

The point is that the voters know where their elected officials stand. Either you are proud of them or not. But the people we elect should never be able to hide behind their majority leader or Speaker of the House to avoid taking a stand and voting.

It also records what was rejected so that when a deal (also if a deal) is finally made, you can see who caved, who changed, what was modified. Etc…

We actually agree, but your fellow regressive think palouseys NO is just fine, even when cracks are forming in the house. Hoyer admitted walls are not immoral and work in appropriate places.

.

If we agree; why are you asking “what is the point”?

 

[OKTexas]

So tell the class how many show votes are planned. This is reminiscent of the republican votes to abolish the ACA, what was you opinion then?

.

Dunno. But you can’t say the Congress isn’t doing it’s job. The House has. The Senate is not so far.

What always tickles me is that if you’re a republican senator and you’re 100% sure the GOP voters in your state want this wall; what is the “danger” in voting against the House Bill? Why do you need shielding? You should be telling the Majority Leader to schedule the vote so you can do what you were elected to do, vote on bills; negotiate what you think is a better deal, and move on to the next issue facing the nation.

The same question could have been asked about the crap Harry Reid pulled with the ACA votes. But, in that case, it turns out the GOP was not ready to repeal the ACA after all. I don’t think we have that issue with the wall from the Democrats.

Actually the republicans put an ACA bill on maobamas desk, he vetoed it. What's the point of McConnell doing the same? They're saying palousey is planning 6 more show votes next week. McConnell said he put a bill the president will sign for a vote. It will only take 7 dems breaking ranks to put this all on palousey.

.

The point is that the voters know where their elected officials stand. Either you are proud of them or not. But the people we elect should never be able to hide behind their majority leader or Speaker of the House to avoid taking a stand and voting.

It also records what was rejected so that when a deal (also if a deal) is finally made, you can see who caved, who changed, what was modified. Etc…

We actually agree, but your fellow regressive think palouseys NO is just fine, even when cracks are forming in the house. Hoyer admitted walls are not immoral and work in appropriate places.

.

If we agree; why are you asking “what is the point”?

I agreed with the point you just made about politicians hiding behind their leaders, I know how my guys will vote and I agree with them.

The point of the thread is the president should require congress to remain in town till the situation is resolved, that's their job. If they want to continue to play politics they can do it from cold DC instead of Hawaii or PR.

.

 

[candycorn]

Dunno. But you can’t say the Congress isn’t doing it’s job. The House has. The Senate is not so far.

What always tickles me is that if you’re a republican senator and you’re 100% sure the GOP voters in your state want this wall; what is the “danger” in voting against the House Bill? Why do you need shielding? You should be telling the Majority Leader to schedule the vote so you can do what you were elected to do, vote on bills; negotiate what you think is a better deal, and move on to the next issue facing the nation.

The same question could have been asked about the crap Harry Reid pulled with the ACA votes. But, in that case, it turns out the GOP was not ready to repeal the ACA after all. I don’t think we have that issue with the wall from the Democrats.

Actually the republicans put an ACA bill on maobamas desk, he vetoed it. What's the point of McConnell doing the same? They're saying palousey is planning 6 more show votes next week. McConnell said he put a bill the president will sign for a vote. It will only take 7 dems breaking ranks to put this all on palousey.

.

The point is that the voters know where their elected officials stand. Either you are proud of them or not. But the people we elect should never be able to hide behind their majority leader or Speaker of the House to avoid taking a stand and voting.

It also records what was rejected so that when a deal (also if a deal) is finally made, you can see who caved, who changed, what was modified. Etc…

We actually agree, but your fellow regressive think palouseys NO is just fine, even when cracks are forming in the house. Hoyer admitted walls are not immoral and work in appropriate places.

.

If we agree; why are you asking “what is the point”?

I agreed with the point you just made about politicians hiding behind their leaders, I know how my guys will vote and I agree with them.

The point of the thread is the president should require congress to remain in town till the situation is resolved, that's their job. If they want to continue to play politics they can do it from cold DC instead of Hawaii or PR.

.

ok

 

[bodecea]

The President, under Article 2, Section 3 has the authority to convene one or both houses of Congress in extraordinary circumstances. He could use these powers to keep Congress in DC instead of leaving to go home.

Article 2, Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

I think this qualifies as an extraordinary occasion. Your thoughts?

Why?

He'd just stomp off in a huff.

Until palousey crawls out of the corner she painted herself in, he can't do anything, except make sure she stays in town. She might change her tune if she has to cancel some of those fund raisers.

.

This is Trump’s mess – he’s solely responsible; the consequence of Trump’s ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, and being unfit to be president.

He's proud of the shutdown...he said so.

 

[bodecea]

Dunno. But you can’t say the Congress isn’t doing it’s job. The House has. The Senate is not so far.

What always tickles me is that if you’re a republican senator and you’re 100% sure the GOP voters in your state want this wall; what is the “danger” in voting against the House Bill? Why do you need shielding? You should be telling the Majority Leader to schedule the vote so you can do what you were elected to do, vote on bills; negotiate what you think is a better deal, and move on to the next issue facing the nation.

The same question could have been asked about the crap Harry Reid pulled with the ACA votes. But, in that case, it turns out the GOP was not ready to repeal the ACA after all. I don’t think we have that issue with the wall from the Democrats.

Actually the republicans put an ACA bill on maobamas desk, he vetoed it. What's the point of McConnell doing the same? They're saying palousey is planning 6 more show votes next week. McConnell said he put a bill the president will sign for a vote. It will only take 7 dems breaking ranks to put this all on palousey.

.

The point is that the voters know where their elected officials stand. Either you are proud of them or not. But the people we elect should never be able to hide behind their majority leader or Speaker of the House to avoid taking a stand and voting.

It also records what was rejected so that when a deal (also if a deal) is finally made, you can see who caved, who changed, what was modified. Etc…

We actually agree, but your fellow regressive think palouseys NO is just fine, even when cracks are forming in the house. Hoyer admitted walls are not immoral and work in appropriate places.

.

If we agree; why are you asking “what is the point”?

I agreed with the point you just made about politicians hiding behind their leaders, I know how my guys will vote and I agree with them.

The point of the thread is the president should require congress to remain in town till the situation is resolved, that's their job. If they want to continue to play politics they can do it from cold DC instead of Hawaii or PR.

.

You seem to think that tiny donnie has the power to keep Congress in Washington.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The President, under Article 2, Section 3 has the authority to convene one or both houses of Congress in extraordinary circumstances. He could use these powers to keep Congress in DC instead of leaving to go home.

Article 2, Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

I think this qualifies as an extraordinary occasion. Your thoughts?

on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjournthem to such Time as he shall think proper;

well what is extraordinary occasion

who know is really is vague

but since the articles is discussing State of the Union address which is to be given time to time (which is also pretty vague)

It also mentions disagreement between them which I would say between the house and senate. In which case he would require them to stay or leave

I don't think that there is disagreement between the house and senate.

The disagreement is with trump who fails to realize that Congress holds the purse

Mitch will not bring the measure to the floor in the Senate in order for them to vote. This is on Mitch

They had already voted and a bill was approved by both houses. Trump would not sign.

So its not the Senate and therefore should not apply

If trump wants to do a state of the union address then he should sign the bill and fight another day.

State of the Union address would be his prime time to say what everybody know what he will say

and the Demo will do a rebuttal

Move on to the next battle

Why do you lie?

Trump would have to veto the bill, pocket veto the bill, or the bill becomes law/

Absolutely none of that happened, dumbass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually the republicans put an ACA bill on maobamas desk, he vetoed it. What's the point of McConnell doing the same? They're saying palousey is planning 6 more show votes next week. McConnell said he put a bill the president will sign for a vote. It will only take 7 dems breaking ranks to put this all on palousey.

.

The point is that the voters know where their elected officials stand. Either you are proud of them or not. But the people we elect should never be able to hide behind their majority leader or Speaker of the House to avoid taking a stand and voting.

It also records what was rejected so that when a deal (also if a deal) is finally made, you can see who caved, who changed, what was modified. Etc…

We actually agree, but your fellow regressive think palouseys NO is just fine, even when cracks are forming in the house. Hoyer admitted walls are not immoral and work in appropriate places.

.

If we agree; why are you asking “what is the point”?

I agreed with the point you just made about politicians hiding behind their leaders, I know how my guys will vote and I agree with them.

The point of the thread is the president should require congress to remain in town till the situation is resolved, that's their job. If they want to continue to play politics they can do it from cold DC instead of Hawaii or PR.

.

You seem to think that tiny donnie has the power to keep Congress in Washington.

Read your Constitution instead of using it to wipe your libtard ass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Americans want a wall that Mexico is paying for, so far Mexico has paid zero so zero portions of the wall are complete.

Again, you lie!

 

[Moonglow]

Americans want a wall that Mexico is paying for, so far Mexico has paid zero so zero portions of the wall are complete.

Again, you lie!

So Mexico has paid for the wall?

 

[DandyDonovan]

The President, under Article 2, Section 3 has the authority to convene one or both houses of Congress in extraordinary circumstances. He could use these powers to keep Congress in DC instead of leaving to go home.

Article 2, Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

I think this qualifies as an extraordinary occasion. Your thoughts?

He should convene just the House and let them sit there.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Americans want a wall that Mexico is paying for, so far Mexico has paid zero so zero portions of the wall are complete.

Again, you lie!

So Mexico has paid for the wall?

Zero portions of the wall are complete. That is what you are claiming, dumbass?

 

[OKTexas]

Actually the republicans put an ACA bill on maobamas desk, he vetoed it. What's the point of McConnell doing the same? They're saying palousey is planning 6 more show votes next week. McConnell said he put a bill the president will sign for a vote. It will only take 7 dems breaking ranks to put this all on palousey.

.

The point is that the voters know where their elected officials stand. Either you are proud of them or not. But the people we elect should never be able to hide behind their majority leader or Speaker of the House to avoid taking a stand and voting.

It also records what was rejected so that when a deal (also if a deal) is finally made, you can see who caved, who changed, what was modified. Etc…

We actually agree, but your fellow regressive think palouseys NO is just fine, even when cracks are forming in the house. Hoyer admitted walls are not immoral and work in appropriate places.

.

If we agree; why are you asking “what is the point”?

I agreed with the point you just made about politicians hiding behind their leaders, I know how my guys will vote and I agree with them.

The point of the thread is the president should require congress to remain in town till the situation is resolved, that's their job. If they want to continue to play politics they can do it from cold DC instead of Hawaii or PR.

.

You seem to think that tiny donnie has the power to keep Congress in Washington.

Did you not read the op?

.

 

[Kondor3]

...Building a wall that wont work is not an extraordinary occasion...

However, declaring a state of invasion by 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens might be enough...

The Republicans are dangerously close to arranging for the declaration of a State of Emergency...

It won't take much, at-law...

And if they do, things could get really tense, really fast...

 

[OKTexas]

The President, under Article 2, Section 3 has the authority to convene one or both houses of Congress in extraordinary circumstances. He could use these powers to keep Congress in DC instead of leaving to go home.

Article 2, Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

I think this qualifies as an extraordinary occasion. Your thoughts?

He should convene just the House and let them sit there.

Doesn't say he can "make" the do their job, it just says he can require them to be there. Kind of like a governor calling a special session of a State legislature.

.

 

[Kilroy2]

The President, under Article 2, Section 3 has the authority to convene one or both houses of Congress in extraordinary circumstances. He could use these powers to keep Congress in DC instead of leaving to go home.

Article 2, Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

I think this qualifies as an extraordinary occasion. Your thoughts?

on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjournthem to such Time as he shall think proper;

well what is extraordinary occasion

who know is really is vague

but since the articles is discussing State of the Union address which is to be given time to time (which is also pretty vague)

It also mentions disagreement between them which I would say between the house and senate. In which case he would require them to stay or leave

I don't think that there is disagreement between the house and senate.

The disagreement is with trump who fails to realize that Congress holds the purse

Mitch will not bring the measure to the floor in the Senate in order for them to vote. This is on Mitch

They had already voted and a bill was approved by both houses. Trump would not sign.

So its not the Senate and therefore should not apply

If trump wants to do a state of the union address then he should sign the bill and fight another day.

State of the Union address would be his prime time to say what everybody know what he will say

and the Demo will do a rebuttal

Move on to the next battle

Why do you lie?

Trump would have to veto the bill, pocket veto the bill, or the bill becomes law/

Absolutely none of that happened, dumbass!

of course the veto didn't happen , I never said it did

This is just your talking points how you present them

Senate pass a spending bill in Mid December that is the facts which you all don't even address or bother checking

House past a spending bill later that is a fact

the two bills needed to be reconciled as they were different

Still trump was sending mixed messages about what he would sign and if he was still "proud" to shut the government down.

That was the end of it.

Its still my opinion that if trump had said that he would sign the bill, then they would have gotten it to him before the shutdown

If you have any other points to make instead of dumbass then make them

because dumbass is not a point it just what is said when you have no point. .

 

[DandyDonovan]

The President, under Article 2, Section 3 has the authority to convene one or both houses of Congress in extraordinary circumstances. He could use these powers to keep Congress in DC instead of leaving to go home.

Article 2, Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

I think this qualifies as an extraordinary occasion. Your thoughts?

He should convene just the House and let them sit there.

Doesn't say he can "make" the do their job, it just says he can require them to be there. Kind of like a governor calling a special session of a State legislature.

.

Thats what I just said, just call them into session even if they just sit there refusing to do anything.

Turn the heat to the building off too.