Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?

[bigrebnc1775]

you are paranoid

So very trusting, child like faith that the govenment will always be there to pick you up when you faLL.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The president is representative man of all the citizens of the country. His check on Congress is the veto. He has limited wartime authority on his own and needs Congress support to continue in long-time operations. In the meantime, he is the constitutional and electoral choice of the people.

Whether he is violating his powers concerning Libya is up for debate and will never command an impeachment majority in the House.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jesus christ separate countries? No, no they didnt. Let me clue you in..the federalists won back in 1776.hence why we have a strong federal government.


I cant work this shit you are posting. Its just that stupid.

hardhead, what ever state they lived in was their home and their country.

um no. they lived in the usa established 1776 fucktard.

The states gave up sovereign nation status when they approved the Constitution. Read Lincoln's first inaugural address for the final word on this non-issue.

 

[bodecea]

It gets funnier and funnier. We should all just stand by and let him dig his own hole of stupidity.

Robert E. Lee said it best.

Then his Virginia background and the mental discipline of years asserted themselves. He had said: "If the Union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people and save in defence will draw my sword on none." There he stood, and in that spirit, after listening to all Blair had to say, he made the fateful reply that is best given in his own p437 simple account of the interview: "I declined the offer he made me to take command of the army that was to be brought into the field, stating as candidly and as courteously as I could, that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, I could take no part in an invasion of the Southern States."24 That was all, as far as Lee was concerned. He had long before decided, instinctively, what his duty required of him, and the allurement of supreme command, with all that a soldier craved, did not tempt him to equivocate for an instant or to see if there were not some way he could keep his own honor and still have the honor he understood the President had offered him. Blair talked on in a futile hope of converting Lee, but it was to no purpose.

Robert*E.*Lee (by Freeman) ? Vol.*I Chap.*25

Which was the opinion of most Americans. And they weren't on the government tit like a lot of Americans are today.

pssst he lost..

The South starting shit they couldn't finish....so now stuff is made up about their Noble Cause and 'northern aggression'......pretty pathetic losers.

 

[bodecea]

In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow
Yes, LBers, you’ve read that correctly: a state has invoked eminent domain in order to take back land from the feds.
In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow - Law Blog - WSJ

Yet another pathetic example of ignorant, irresponsible rightist legislative terrorism.

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court ruled the State of Maryland did not have the Constitutional authority to tax The Second Bank of the United States. Now, if the Constitution does not authorize the states to tax a bank created by Congress, how could anyone believe the Constitution authorizes a state to appropriate Federal land.

Pure idiocy.

Idiot this happen in 2010

McColloch v Maryland was in 2010?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet another pathetic example of ignorant, irresponsible rightist legislative terrorism.

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court ruled the State of Maryland did not have the Constitutional authority to tax The Second Bank of the United States. Now, if the Constitution does not authorize the states to tax a bank created by Congress, how could anyone believe the Constitution authorizes a state to appropriate Federal land.

Pure idiocy.

Idiot this happen in 2010

McColloch v Maryland was in 2010?

littledeb is not bright, but even she is not that stupid. The answer means she is drinking early in NC tonight.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

pssst he lost..

The South starting shit they couldn't finish....so now stuff is made up about their Noble Cause and 'northern aggression'......pretty pathetic losers.

Bigreb is one of those people who are all talk. Had this been 1860 he wouldnt have done shit. he would have hid in his barn and shit his pants.

Hence why he sits at home on his computer and posts shit like this and never actually does anything.

Dude I don't have an avatar of a tranformer, you do. Kind of childlike.

 

[bodecea]

The South starting shit they couldn't finish....so now stuff is made up about their Noble Cause and 'northern aggression'......pretty pathetic losers.

Bigreb is one of those people who are all talk. Had this been 1860 he wouldnt have done shit. he would have hid in his barn and shit his pants.

Hence why he sits at home on his computer and posts shit like this and never actually does anything.

Dude I don't have an avatar of a tranformer, you do. Kind of childlike.

No, you have a nic of traitors.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yet another pathetic example of ignorant, irresponsible rightist legislative terrorism.

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court ruled the State of Maryland did not have the Constitutional authority to tax The Second Bank of the United States. Now, if the Constitution does not authorize the states to tax a bank created by Congress, how could anyone believe the Constitution authorizes a state to appropriate Federal land.

Pure idiocy.

Idiot this happen in 2010

McColloch v Maryland was in 2010?

No stupid

This which is what's being discussed happen in 2010.
Utah Gov. signed bill that would kick the feds out.

Yes, LBers, you’ve read that correctly: a state has invoked eminent domain in order to take back land from the feds.

 

[ShackledNation]

Because Congress is just as bad.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bigreb is one of those people who are all talk. Had this been 1860 he wouldnt have done shit. he would have hid in his barn and shit his pants.

Hence why he sits at home on his computer and posts shit like this and never actually does anything.

Dude I don't have an avatar of a tranformer, you do. Kind of childlike.

No, you have a nic of traitors.

OH yeah and the one who uses a pic of a pirate in their sig. You have no honor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Idiot this happen in 2010

McColloch v Maryland was in 2010?

littledeb is not bright, but even she is not that stupid. The answer means she is drinking early in NC tonight.

I am a way smarter than you junior.

 

[idb]

Wow here is someone that knows nothing about our separation of powers and our system of checks and balances.

Am I wrong?
Please enlighten me.

Yes you're wrong the president must go through Congress otherwise he's a dictator.

As I understand it;
A president can legally issue an Executive Order.
An Executive Order can be issued without reference to the Congress.
Congress has the power to overturn or prevent the execution of an Executive Order.
An Executive Order can be challenged and overturned in court.

Plenty of evidence of 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' there I would think.
A dictator wouldn't put up with that kind of scrutiny.

 

[ShackledNation]

Am I wrong?
Please enlighten me.

Yes you're wrong the president must go through Congress otherwise he's a dictator.

As I understand it;
A president can legally issue an Executive Order.
An Executive Order can be issued without reference to the Congress.
Congress has the power to overturn or prevent the execution of an Executive Order.
An Executive Order can be challenged and overturned in court.

Plenty of evidence of 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' there I would think.
A dictator wouldn't put up with that kind of scrutiny.

All executive orders are unconstitutional. It is a tool formulated by the courts acting out of line.

 

[idb]

Yes you're wrong the president must go through Congress otherwise he's a dictator.

As I understand it;
A president can legally issue an Executive Order.
An Executive Order can be issued without reference to the Congress.
Congress has the power to overturn or prevent the execution of an Executive Order.
An Executive Order can be challenged and overturned in court.

Plenty of evidence of 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' there I would think.
A dictator wouldn't put up with that kind of scrutiny.

All executive orders are unconstitutional. It is a tool formulated by the courts acting out of line.

Where are they prohibited in the Constitution?

 

[JakeStarkey]

McColloch v Maryland was in 2010?

littledeb is not bright, but even she is not that stupid. The answer means she is drinking early in NC tonight.

I am a way smarter than you junior.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes you're wrong the president must go through Congress otherwise he's a dictator.

As I understand it;
A president can legally issue an Executive Order.
An Executive Order can be issued without reference to the Congress.
Congress has the power to overturn or prevent the execution of an Executive Order.
An Executive Order can be challenged and overturned in court.

Plenty of evidence of 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' there I would think.
A dictator wouldn't put up with that kind of scrutiny.

All executive orders are unconstitutional. It is a tool formulated by the courts acting out of line.

Not at all. End of story.

 

[ShackledNation]

As I understand it;
A president can legally issue an Executive Order.
An Executive Order can be issued without reference to the Congress.
Congress has the power to overturn or prevent the execution of an Executive Order.
An Executive Order can be challenged and overturned in court.

Plenty of evidence of 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' there I would think.
A dictator wouldn't put up with that kind of scrutiny.

All executive orders are unconstitutional. It is a tool formulated by the courts acting out of line.

Not at all. End of story.

Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?

 

[idb]

All executive orders are unconstitutional. It is a tool formulated by the courts acting out of line.

Not at all. End of story.

Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?

Quite the opposite...you're the one claiming that they're unconstitutional.
The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Moonglow]

U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. At the minimum, most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[1] the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the Federal Government - the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[2]

Executive order (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia