Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of fucking liars!
Speaking of not caring about the constitution...
Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers
^This is neither, "faithfully executing the office of the president" nor "protecting and defending the constitution" as the Oath of Office demands.
Where in the Constitution does Congress have subpoena power over a sitting president or his officers?
LOL...seriously?
Article 1... oversight of the executive.
They have power of impeachment. Where does it say they can Subpoena a president or its officers outside the impeachment process?
Oversight requires information. No?
The only play for Trump is executive privilege.
Not a republican. I call the press the enemy of the people because they ONLY serve the global communist agenda.Why do Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment of the Constitution) the “enemy of the people”?
They have the impeachment trial in the house. And if the president is impeached it has to be ratified by the Senate.Clause Six grants to the Senate the sole power to try impeachments and spells out the basic procedures for impeachment trials.What do you think the job of Congress is besides oversight? Duh!When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of fucking liars!
Speaking of not caring about the constitution...
Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers
^This is neither, "faithfully executing the office of the president" nor "protecting and defending the constitution" as the Oath of Office demands.
Where in the Constitution does Congress have subpoena power over a sitting president or his officers?
Again, where it the text do they have Subpoena powers with regards to the Preisdent and his officers?
They have impeachment power listed.
It's actually more like an indictment by the House and a trial in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding, with 66 votes needed to convict and remove.They have the impeachment trial in the house. And if the president is impeached it has to be ratified by the Senate.Clause Six grants to the Senate the sole power to try impeachments and spells out the basic procedures for impeachment trials.What do you think the job of Congress is besides oversight? Duh!Speaking of not caring about the constitution...
Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers
^This is neither, "faithfully executing the office of the president" nor "protecting and defending the constitution" as the Oath of Office demands.
Where in the Constitution does Congress have subpoena power over a sitting president or his officers?
Again, where it the text do they have Subpoena powers with regards to the Preisdent and his officers?
They have impeachment power listed.
That’s actually how it works.
That’s how it worked with Bill Clinton.
Speaking of not caring about the constitution...
Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers
^This is neither, "faithfully executing the office of the president" nor "protecting and defending the constitution" as the Oath of Office demands.
Where in the Constitution does Congress have subpoena power over a sitting president or his officers?
LOL...seriously?
Article 1... oversight of the executive.
They have power of impeachment. Where does it say they can Subpoena a president or its officers outside the impeachment process?
Oversight requires information. No?
The only play for Trump is executive privilege.
Which isn't mentioned explicitly in the constitution either.
So basically the constitution doesn't give congress the right to subpoena a sitting president, nor does it give the president any right to ignore it.
Both are based on common law concepts and SC decisions, and thus the above bitching about Trump ignoring the Constitution is moot.
So basically the constitution doesn't give congress the right to subpoena a sitting president, nor does it give the president any right to ignore it.
Where in the Constitution does Congress have subpoena power over a sitting president or his officers?
LOL...seriously?
Article 1... oversight of the executive.
They have power of impeachment. Where does it say they can Subpoena a president or its officers outside the impeachment process?
Oversight requires information. No?
The only play for Trump is executive privilege.
Which isn't mentioned explicitly in the constitution either.
So basically the constitution doesn't give congress the right to subpoena a sitting president, nor does it give the president any right to ignore it.
Both are based on common law concepts and SC decisions, and thus the above bitching about Trump ignoring the Constitution is moot.So basically the constitution doesn't give congress the right to subpoena a sitting president, nor does it give the president any right to ignore it.
Read some history on the subject.
Subpoenas are necessary for congress to perform their oversight function. A president can fight it with EP but ultimately the courts will decide who has standing.
He is not challengingLol so he doesnt have a right to challenge it?It is Trump who is shitting on the Constitution by ignoring congressional oversight
Rules do not apply to him
Boy, if thats not disingenuous coming from a political hack. Specifically, a democrat
Not for his staffLOL...seriously?
Article 1... oversight of the executive.
They have power of impeachment. Where does it say they can Subpoena a president or its officers outside the impeachment process?
Oversight requires information. No?
The only play for Trump is executive privilege.
Which isn't mentioned explicitly in the constitution either.
So basically the constitution doesn't give congress the right to subpoena a sitting president, nor does it give the president any right to ignore it.
Both are based on common law concepts and SC decisions, and thus the above bitching about Trump ignoring the Constitution is moot.So basically the constitution doesn't give congress the right to subpoena a sitting president, nor does it give the president any right to ignore it.
Read some history on the subject.
Subpoenas are necessary for congress to perform their oversight function. A president can fight it with EP but ultimately the courts will decide who has standing.
And the courts have almost always sided with the President.
Any appearances before before congress by a President have been voluntary.
Not for his staffThey have power of impeachment. Where does it say they can Subpoena a president or its officers outside the impeachment process?
Oversight requires information. No?
The only play for Trump is executive privilege.
Which isn't mentioned explicitly in the constitution either.
So basically the constitution doesn't give congress the right to subpoena a sitting president, nor does it give the president any right to ignore it.
Both are based on common law concepts and SC decisions, and thus the above bitching about Trump ignoring the Constitution is moot.So basically the constitution doesn't give congress the right to subpoena a sitting president, nor does it give the president any right to ignore it.
Read some history on the subject.
Subpoenas are necessary for congress to perform their oversight function. A president can fight it with EP but ultimately the courts will decide who has standing.
And the courts have almost always sided with the President.
Any appearances before before congress by a President have been voluntary.
-Public accommodation laws have been upheld by the supreme court on several occasions.The constitutionality of federal minimum wage has been on the books since 1940No, i dont feel it was wrong. It has just been weaponized by presidents appointing for ideological purity rather than constitutional loyalty.-So what you are saying is that you feel that the constitution had it wrong when they established a body to interpret the law because you don't like their interpretation?Yea, the supreme court also said internment camps based on nationality were constitutional, and it obviously wasnt.Well. Seatbelt wasn't a good example maybe, but the rest stands. Either by regulatory agencies or laws. The federal minimum wage was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, the entity that is mandated by the constitution to make such rulings in 1940.Is the Federal Minimum Wage Unconstitutional?You have no idea what you are talking about.Yes and one of those well enumerated powers is the issuing of laws the population. Laws like you have to wear a seat belt. Laws like an employer has to provide a safe workplace. Or he can not give his employees less than a certain amount of money. And bathrooms in schools are public property. And yes freedom of association works both individually and publicly.
The constitution gives congress the power to make laws within the realm of their enumerated powers
There is no federal seatbelt laws
Fed minimum wage is unconstitutional
There is no freedom of association between individuals. I cant restrict who someone does business with. Neither can the fed gov but they do it anyway.
So pray tell how do you uphold the claim that something is unconstitutional when the supreme court disagreed.?
No but individuals do have the right to choose their association. By the way I find it interesting that from your original premise of the OP you seem to not really capable of establishing that Democrats have really gone against the constitution. Nor are you capable of arguing against my position that Republicans can and have done so.
This is not to say the Democrats haven't done unconstitutional stuff, just that your examples aren't it.
The supreme court is nothing more than political activists, they mean nothing to me. I can read and the constitution is clear.
There is nothing in the constitution that discusses labor. Those activists used the interstate commerce bullshit as justification.
"Regulate" as the text states, meant "to make regular" back then. Which would mean, a free flow of commerce. Meaning, dont let states prohibit the flow of any legal good. With john marshalls "interpretation" it would give congress complete authority over the private sector, which is bullshit and it contradicts the whole intent of the constitution. A limitation if federal power.
The fed gov has a right to regulate roads because that is an enumerated power.
Yes, indiv8duals have a right to choose their association, and dems want to take that away. Its quite clear.
I have stated several things dems want and do thatiis unconstitutional. im wondering whether you are actually reading what i am writing.
Republicans shit all over the constitution too. You wont get an argument from me. I dislike the entire duopoly. Fuck em all
-No you haven't. The supreme court decided that the minimum wage wasn't unconstitutional.
-You didn't show at all how wanting medicare for all instead of private insurance is unconstitutional.
-Your example of freedom of association didn't work either since you are simple incapable of establishing how exactly the Dems are going against it. Sorry but bathrooms aren't it since it's 2 competing principles. Freedom of association grants a person the right to choose gender. It also allows a gender to say we want certain restrictions. Toss in the civil rights act and your claim one way or another becomes unsustainable. That's why we have courts and so far the courts are coming down on the side of the transgenders.
Not everyone blindly follows a corrupt govt. So, group of activists opinion means nothing to me. I just explained what the interstate commerce clause meant.
Medicare for all would abolish private insurance. I have stated more than once. Again, i doubt you are reading what i write.
Again, i pointed out public accomodation laws. And again, i doubt you are reading what i wrote. Repeating myself to accomodate for your intellectual laziness is getting to be annoying.
They dont have the power to ban private insurance. Thats fucking absurd.-Public accommodation laws have been upheld by the supreme court on several occasions.The constitutionality of federal minimum wage has been on the books since 1940No, i dont feel it was wrong. It has just been weaponized by presidents appointing for ideological purity rather than constitutional loyalty.-So what you are saying is that you feel that the constitution had it wrong when they established a body to interpret the law because you don't like their interpretation?Yea, the supreme court also said internment camps based on nationality were constitutional, and it obviously wasnt.Well. Seatbelt wasn't a good example maybe, but the rest stands. Either by regulatory agencies or laws. The federal minimum wage was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, the entity that is mandated by the constitution to make such rulings in 1940.Is the Federal Minimum Wage Unconstitutional?You have no idea what you are talking about.
The constitution gives congress the power to make laws within the realm of their enumerated powers
There is no federal seatbelt laws
Fed minimum wage is unconstitutional
There is no freedom of association between individuals. I cant restrict who someone does business with. Neither can the fed gov but they do it anyway.
So pray tell how do you uphold the claim that something is unconstitutional when the supreme court disagreed.?
No but individuals do have the right to choose their association. By the way I find it interesting that from your original premise of the OP you seem to not really capable of establishing that Democrats have really gone against the constitution. Nor are you capable of arguing against my position that Republicans can and have done so.
This is not to say the Democrats haven't done unconstitutional stuff, just that your examples aren't it.
The supreme court is nothing more than political activists, they mean nothing to me. I can read and the constitution is clear.
There is nothing in the constitution that discusses labor. Those activists used the interstate commerce bullshit as justification.
"Regulate" as the text states, meant "to make regular" back then. Which would mean, a free flow of commerce. Meaning, dont let states prohibit the flow of any legal good. With john marshalls "interpretation" it would give congress complete authority over the private sector, which is bullshit and it contradicts the whole intent of the constitution. A limitation if federal power.
The fed gov has a right to regulate roads because that is an enumerated power.
Yes, indiv8duals have a right to choose their association, and dems want to take that away. Its quite clear.
I have stated several things dems want and do thatiis unconstitutional. im wondering whether you are actually reading what i am writing.
Republicans shit all over the constitution too. You wont get an argument from me. I dislike the entire duopoly. Fuck em all
-No you haven't. The supreme court decided that the minimum wage wasn't unconstitutional.
-You didn't show at all how wanting medicare for all instead of private insurance is unconstitutional.
-Your example of freedom of association didn't work either since you are simple incapable of establishing how exactly the Dems are going against it. Sorry but bathrooms aren't it since it's 2 competing principles. Freedom of association grants a person the right to choose gender. It also allows a gender to say we want certain restrictions. Toss in the civil rights act and your claim one way or another becomes unsustainable. That's why we have courts and so far the courts are coming down on the side of the transgenders.
Not everyone blindly follows a corrupt govt. So, group of activists opinion means nothing to me. I just explained what the interstate commerce clause meant.
Medicare for all would abolish private insurance. I have stated more than once. Again, i doubt you are reading what i write.
Again, i pointed out public accomodation laws. And again, i doubt you are reading what i wrote. Repeating myself to accomodate for your intellectual laziness is getting to be annoying.
This means it hasn't been successfully challenged for
55 and 79 years. The composition of the supreme court has had the same partisan makeup all this time?
- This brings me to my next point. Intellectual laziness? You do realize your the one, making an argument from incredulity? I can't believe that the supreme court ruled the way they did because that's incredible, therefor it has to be partisan motivated.
-Medicare for all would abolish private insurance? Does the availability of a
hospital abolish your right to visit a voodoo witch doctor? There's a difference between not being allowed to do something and not wanting to. And even if that wasn't true how would that be unconstitutional. The government has the right and I would argue even the obligation to provide services to their citizens.
NixonNot for his staffOversight requires information. No?
The only play for Trump is executive privilege.
Which isn't mentioned explicitly in the constitution either.
So basically the constitution doesn't give congress the right to subpoena a sitting president, nor does it give the president any right to ignore it.
Both are based on common law concepts and SC decisions, and thus the above bitching about Trump ignoring the Constitution is moot.So basically the constitution doesn't give congress the right to subpoena a sitting president, nor does it give the president any right to ignore it.
Read some history on the subject.
Subpoenas are necessary for congress to perform their oversight function. A president can fight it with EP but ultimately the courts will decide who has standing.
And the courts have almost always sided with the President.
Any appearances before before congress by a President have been voluntary.
Has a cabinet member ever been forced to testify against their will?
Even worse, Trump wants the media which criticizes him to be investigated by the feds!Nobody knows what you’re talking about (that includes you).
Why do Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment of the Constitution) the “enemy of the people”?
NixonNot for his staffWhich isn't mentioned explicitly in the constitution either.
So basically the constitution doesn't give congress the right to subpoena a sitting president, nor does it give the president any right to ignore it.
Both are based on common law concepts and SC decisions, and thus the above bitching about Trump ignoring the Constitution is moot.So basically the constitution doesn't give congress the right to subpoena a sitting president, nor does it give the president any right to ignore it.
Read some history on the subject.
Subpoenas are necessary for congress to perform their oversight function. A president can fight it with EP but ultimately the courts will decide who has standing.
And the courts have almost always sided with the President.
Any appearances before before congress by a President have been voluntary.
Has a cabinet member ever been forced to testify against their will?
Congress threatened to have them arrested
That is how we got John Dean
-They wouldn't ban anything. They would provide a better alternative. Otherwise people would still opt to retain their private insurance. Say I start up a business specializing in fire fighting. Would that mean I have the constitutional right to demand the local fire station to close their doors?They dont have the power to ban private insurance. Thats fucking absurd.-Public accommodation laws have been upheld by the supreme court on several occasions.The constitutionality of federal minimum wage has been on the books since 1940No, i dont feel it was wrong. It has just been weaponized by presidents appointing for ideological purity rather than constitutional loyalty.-So what you are saying is that you feel that the constitution had it wrong when they established a body to interpret the law because you don't like their interpretation?Yea, the supreme court also said internment camps based on nationality were constitutional, and it obviously wasnt.Well. Seatbelt wasn't a good example maybe, but the rest stands. Either by regulatory agencies or laws. The federal minimum wage was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, the entity that is mandated by the constitution to make such rulings in 1940.Is the Federal Minimum Wage Unconstitutional?
So pray tell how do you uphold the claim that something is unconstitutional when the supreme court disagreed.?
No but individuals do have the right to choose their association. By the way I find it interesting that from your original premise of the OP you seem to not really capable of establishing that Democrats have really gone against the constitution. Nor are you capable of arguing against my position that Republicans can and have done so.
This is not to say the Democrats haven't done unconstitutional stuff, just that your examples aren't it.
The supreme court is nothing more than political activists, they mean nothing to me. I can read and the constitution is clear.
There is nothing in the constitution that discusses labor. Those activists used the interstate commerce bullshit as justification.
"Regulate" as the text states, meant "to make regular" back then. Which would mean, a free flow of commerce. Meaning, dont let states prohibit the flow of any legal good. With john marshalls "interpretation" it would give congress complete authority over the private sector, which is bullshit and it contradicts the whole intent of the constitution. A limitation if federal power.
The fed gov has a right to regulate roads because that is an enumerated power.
Yes, indiv8duals have a right to choose their association, and dems want to take that away. Its quite clear.
I have stated several things dems want and do thatiis unconstitutional. im wondering whether you are actually reading what i am writing.
Republicans shit all over the constitution too. You wont get an argument from me. I dislike the entire duopoly. Fuck em all
-No you haven't. The supreme court decided that the minimum wage wasn't unconstitutional.
-You didn't show at all how wanting medicare for all instead of private insurance is unconstitutional.
-Your example of freedom of association didn't work either since you are simple incapable of establishing how exactly the Dems are going against it. Sorry but bathrooms aren't it since it's 2 competing principles. Freedom of association grants a person the right to choose gender. It also allows a gender to say we want certain restrictions. Toss in the civil rights act and your claim one way or another becomes unsustainable. That's why we have courts and so far the courts are coming down on the side of the transgenders.
Not everyone blindly follows a corrupt govt. So, group of activists opinion means nothing to me. I just explained what the interstate commerce clause meant.
Medicare for all would abolish private insurance. I have stated more than once. Again, i doubt you are reading what i write.
Again, i pointed out public accomodation laws. And again, i doubt you are reading what i wrote. Repeating myself to accomodate for your intellectual laziness is getting to be annoying.
This means it hasn't been successfully challenged for
55 and 79 years. The composition of the supreme court has had the same partisan makeup all this time?
- This brings me to my next point. Intellectual laziness? You do realize your the one, making an argument from incredulity? I can't believe that the supreme court ruled the way they did because that's incredible, therefor it has to be partisan motivated.
-Medicare for all would abolish private insurance? Does the availability of a
hospital abolish your right to visit a voodoo witch doctor? There's a difference between not being allowed to do something and not wanting to. And even if that wasn't true how would that be unconstitutional. The government has the right and I would argue even the obligation to provide services to their citizens.
AGAIN, the federal govt has a specific list of enumerated powers.
Its not because i dont agree with the rulings, its because the constitution doesnt say it.
Public accomodation is the exact opposite of equality. Our federal govt doesnt have the power to discriminate. Which, is what that does. Also, there is no enumerated power to regulate private property.
Why dont these totalitarians just get an amendment? If its "thebright thing to do" it shouldnt be hard to get an amendment passed. But no. They just want to abuse power. Its fuckin sickening.
We left you european totalitarians to get away from bullshit like that.
Our founders built this country in vain.
When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of fucking liars!
I guess you dont know democrat presidential hopefuls are calling for a ban of private insurance.-They wouldn't ban anything. They would provide a better alternative. Otherwise people would still opt to retain their private insurance. Say I start up a business specializing in fire fighting. Would that mean I have the constitutional right to demand the local fire station to close their doors?They dont have the power to ban private insurance. Thats fucking absurd.-Public accommodation laws have been upheld by the supreme court on several occasions.The constitutionality of federal minimum wage has been on the books since 1940No, i dont feel it was wrong. It has just been weaponized by presidents appointing for ideological purity rather than constitutional loyalty.-So what you are saying is that you feel that the constitution had it wrong when they established a body to interpret the law because you don't like their interpretation?Yea, the supreme court also said internment camps based on nationality were constitutional, and it obviously wasnt.
The supreme court is nothing more than political activists, they mean nothing to me. I can read and the constitution is clear.
There is nothing in the constitution that discusses labor. Those activists used the interstate commerce bullshit as justification.
"Regulate" as the text states, meant "to make regular" back then. Which would mean, a free flow of commerce. Meaning, dont let states prohibit the flow of any legal good. With john marshalls "interpretation" it would give congress complete authority over the private sector, which is bullshit and it contradicts the whole intent of the constitution. A limitation if federal power.
The fed gov has a right to regulate roads because that is an enumerated power.
Yes, indiv8duals have a right to choose their association, and dems want to take that away. Its quite clear.
I have stated several things dems want and do thatiis unconstitutional. im wondering whether you are actually reading what i am writing.
Republicans shit all over the constitution too. You wont get an argument from me. I dislike the entire duopoly. Fuck em all
-No you haven't. The supreme court decided that the minimum wage wasn't unconstitutional.
-You didn't show at all how wanting medicare for all instead of private insurance is unconstitutional.
-Your example of freedom of association didn't work either since you are simple incapable of establishing how exactly the Dems are going against it. Sorry but bathrooms aren't it since it's 2 competing principles. Freedom of association grants a person the right to choose gender. It also allows a gender to say we want certain restrictions. Toss in the civil rights act and your claim one way or another becomes unsustainable. That's why we have courts and so far the courts are coming down on the side of the transgenders.
Not everyone blindly follows a corrupt govt. So, group of activists opinion means nothing to me. I just explained what the interstate commerce clause meant.
Medicare for all would abolish private insurance. I have stated more than once. Again, i doubt you are reading what i write.
Again, i pointed out public accomodation laws. And again, i doubt you are reading what i wrote. Repeating myself to accomodate for your intellectual laziness is getting to be annoying.
This means it hasn't been successfully challenged for
55 and 79 years. The composition of the supreme court has had the same partisan makeup all this time?
- This brings me to my next point. Intellectual laziness? You do realize your the one, making an argument from incredulity? I can't believe that the supreme court ruled the way they did because that's incredible, therefor it has to be partisan motivated.
-Medicare for all would abolish private insurance? Does the availability of a
hospital abolish your right to visit a voodoo witch doctor? There's a difference between not being allowed to do something and not wanting to. And even if that wasn't true how would that be unconstitutional. The government has the right and I would argue even the obligation to provide services to their citizens.
AGAIN, the federal govt has a specific list of enumerated powers.
Its not because i dont agree with the rulings, its because the constitution doesnt say it.
Public accomodation is the exact opposite of equality. Our federal govt doesnt have the power to discriminate. Which, is what that does. Also, there is no enumerated power to regulate private property.
Why dont these totalitarians just get an amendment? If its "thebright thing to do" it shouldnt be hard to get an amendment passed. But no. They just want to abuse power. Its fuckin sickening.
We left you european totalitarians to get away from bullshit like that.
Our founders built this country in vain.
-And you don't agree with their rulings otherwise you wouldn't argue they were wrong. Again it's an argument from incredulity. Just because you don't believe something to be true doesn't mean it isn't.
-How is not being allowed to discriminate discriminatory? This is the purpose of public accommodation laws.
-And they don't get an amendment because the supreme court has ruled over and over again that they don't need an amendment. Let's flip the question why don't you just get an amendment, the supreme court isn't on your side.
They do when they are starring in political theater.When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of fucking liars!
Actually I wasn’t aware that any liberals or democrats cared about preserving the constitution at all.
