Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?

[Lasher]

There is only one Preamble...with a capital "P" (as you used) and that is at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution:




But, keep whining....it's what people like you seem to have going for you...the only thing you have had going for you the last few years....and whining is SUCH a compelling argument, don't you think?

My capitalizing "preamble" is no more indicative of ignorance than your spelling of "duly," so don't get on your high-horse with Lasher.

Most intelligent people know that when someone like you starts resorting to trying to ridicule with words such as "whining," they are admitting they realize they have little knowledge of whatever subject they are defending.

Your obvious anger and state of being upset shows the world just how thin your thoughts are.

I wish to congratulate you for perhaps the most severe case of Reflection I've seen in months here.

And in return, let me congratulate you on your deflection, old sport. Don't be so angry.

 

[bodecea]

My capitalizing "preamble" is no more indicative of ignorance than your spelling of "duly," so don't get on your high-horse with Lasher.

Most intelligent people know that when someone like you starts resorting to trying to ridicule with words such as "whining," they are admitting they realize they have little knowledge of whatever subject they are defending.

Your obvious anger and state of being upset shows the world just how thin your thoughts are.

I wish to congratulate you for perhaps the most severe case of Reflection I've seen in months here.

And in return, let me congratulate you on your deflection, old sport. Don't be so angry.

And pray tell, how did I deflect? (Of course...I'm the angry one, what with me ranting about the President and all....)

 

[Lasher]

I wish to congratulate you for perhaps the most severe case of Reflection I've seen in months here.

And in return, let me congratulate you on your deflection, old sport. Don't be so angry.

And pray tell, how did I deflect? (Of course...I'm the angry one, what with me ranting about the President and all....)

You're really dim, aren't you, old sport? Anyone with a grain of brain can see how you attempted to deflect. Lash isn't ranting, He is simply stating facts, and you are the ranter, as any fool can plainly see.

Oh, incidentally, that absurd graphic in your sig is highly sophomoric, juvenile, childish, asinine and ridiculous. Grow up.

 

[bodecea]

And in return, let me congratulate you on your deflection, old sport. Don't be so angry.

And pray tell, how did I deflect? (Of course...I'm the angry one, what with me ranting about the President and all....)

You're really dim, aren't you, old sport? Anyone with a grain of brain can see how you attempted to deflect. Lash isn't ranting, He is simply stating facts, and you are the ranter, as any fool can plainly see.

Oh, incidentally, that absurd graphic in your sig is highly sophomoric, juvenile, childish, asinine and ridiculous. Grow up.

You are cracking me up with your deflections and anger...and then calling ME a deflector and angry.



This is parody, right?

 

[Lasher]

And pray tell, how did I deflect? (Of course...I'm the angry one, what with me ranting about the President and all....)

You're really dim, aren't you, old sport? Anyone with a grain of brain can see how you attempted to deflect. Lash isn't ranting, He is simply stating facts, and you are the ranter, as any fool can plainly see.

Oh, incidentally, that absurd graphic in your sig is highly sophomoric, juvenile, childish, asinine and ridiculous. Grow up.

You are cracking me up with your deflections and anger...and then calling ME a deflector and angry.



This is parody, right?

OMG!! What will you say next? "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're really dim, aren't you, old sport? Anyone with a grain of brain can see how you attempted to deflect. Lash isn't ranting, He is simply stating facts, and you are the ranter, as any fool can plainly see.

Oh, incidentally, that absurd graphic in your sig is highly sophomoric, juvenile, childish, asinine and ridiculous. Grow up.

You are cracking me up with your deflections and anger...and then calling ME a deflector and angry.



This is parody, right?

OMG!! What will you say next? "I know you are, but what am I?"

Lash, old spleen, you are projecting. That's putting your inner angst and unhappiness on others. Bodecea is having good fun with you, rightly so.

 

[bodecea]

You are cracking me up with your deflections and anger...and then calling ME a deflector and angry.



This is parody, right?

OMG!! What will you say next? "I know you are, but what am I?"

Lash, old spleen, you are projecting. That's putting your inner angst and unhappiness on others. Bodecea is having good fun with you, rightly so.

It's like the Onion and the old National Lampoon all rolled up into one poster.

 

[Lasher]

OMG!! What will you say next? "I know you are, but what am I?"

Lash, old spleen, you are projecting. That's putting your inner angst and unhappiness on others. Bodecea is having good fun with you, rightly so.

It's like the Onion and the old National Lampoon all rolled up into one poster.

It's hard getting happy again after a lashing, isn't it old sport? LOL!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lasher is lashing himself! Oh,my, how much fun!!

 

[Lasher]

Lasher is lashing himself! Oh,my, how much fun!!

You can't read, either, can you?

 

[bodecea]

Lasher is lashing himself! Oh,my, how much fun!!

I bet he's into leather too....but please stay away from those ass-less chaps.....please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lasher is lashing himself! Oh,my, how much fun!!

I bet he's into leather too....but please stay away from those ass-less chaps.....please.

Sweaty man ass might be Lasher's get go, bodecea! I think he gave himself away!

 

[yidnar]

The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.

General Patton, as right wing as he was, would put you on night guard for being so stupid.

Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.

You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool. Dismissed.

Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.

What????52% of the white vote???aaahhh hhhaaa hhaaa ooohhh hooo hooo ha ha ha hee hee hee!trust me his black ass is finished !!! SEE YOU AT YOUR RIOTS!!

 

[yidnar]

The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.

General Patton, as right wing as he was, would put you on night guard for being so stupid.

Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.

You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool. Dismissed.

Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.

What????52% of the white vote???aaahhh hhhaaa hhaaa ooohhh hooo hooo ha ha ha hee hee hee!trust me his black ass is finished !!! SEE YOU AT YOUR RIOTS!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yidnar's first lie exposed: The vast majority of America was isolationistic, and FDR moved as quickly as he could through the thirities into the forty and forty-one to educate the fools that America would have to fight Germany.

Yidnar's second lie exposed: Run Palin or Bachmann, and Obama will get 48 to 52% of the white vote and more than 80% of the darker vote.

You are as stupid as USAR and Tea Party Fascist and NeoFascist.

You are a demagogue, a fascist, a racist, and a fool. Dismissed.

Folks like you guarantee an Obama re-election.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Summary of the thread and some afterthoughts:

With regard to Libya, as we know from Dellums v. Bush (1990) the courts will not get involved in a conflict between the Executive and Legislative branches as Congress has no objective standing. But there is something else Congress can do: it may use its constitutionally mandated authority to defund military programs. It can be inferred and argued, therefore, that by not defunding the Libya operation, Congress has given its de facto approval of the action and there would be no grounds for impeachment. Indeed, how can the president be accused of ‘defying’ the will of the people if Congress itself refuses to acknowledge that same desire by not defunding military operations for Libya.

In the case of the Dream Act, the president clearly has settled Constitutional case law on his side. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court struck down a Texas law that forbade undocumented children from attending public school. In Weber v. Aetna Insurance (1972), the Court ruled that children may not be punished for the criminal or irresponsible acts of their parents. It can be argued, therefore, that it is Congress in violation of the law by not passing the Dream Act, not the president.

And with regard to the president’s ‘EPA thugs,’ not only did the Court rule in Connecticut v. American Electric Power (2011) that the EPA is constitutionally authorized regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but the ruling was unanimous:

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Monday a lawsuit by six states that were suing five major power companies for emitting greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

In a victory for the utilities and President Obama's administration, the high court ruled the Environmental Protection Agency -- not the courts -- should place restrictions on such heat-trapping emissions. It reversed a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that would have allowed federal judges to issue restrictions.

"The critical point is that Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants; the delegation is what displaces federal common law," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a decision on behalf of the court, which voted 8-0 against the states. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself, because she had sat on the appeals court panel that heard the case. Ginsburg also said the states and conservation groups can go to federal court if they object to the EPA's eventual rules.

Supreme Court backs EPA over states on climate change - Green House - USATODAY.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Summary of the thread and some afterthoughts:

With regard to Libya, as we know from Dellums v. Bush (1990) the courts will not get involved in a conflict between the Executive and Legislative branches as Congress has no objective standing. But there is something else Congress can do: it may use its constitutionally mandated authority to defund military programs. It can be inferred and argued, therefore, that by not defunding the Libya operation, Congress has given its de facto approval of the action and there would be no grounds for impeachment. Indeed, how can the president be accused of ‘defying’ the will of the people if Congress itself refuses to acknowledge that same desire by not defunding military operations for Libya.

In the case of the Dream Act, the president clearly has settled Constitutional case law on his side. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court struck down a Texas law that forbade undocumented children from attending public school. In Weber v. Aetna Insurance (1972), the Court ruled that children may not be punished for the criminal or irresponsible acts of their parents. It can be argued, therefore, that it is Congress in violation of the law by not passing the Dream Act, not the president.

And with regard to the president’s ‘EPA thugs,’ not only did the Court rule in Connecticut v. American Electric Power (2011) that the EPA is constitutionally authorized regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but the ruling was unanimous:

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Monday a lawsuit by six states that were suing five major power companies for emitting greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

In a victory for the utilities and President Obama's administration, the high court ruled the Environmental Protection Agency -- not the courts -- should place restrictions on such heat-trapping emissions. It reversed a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that would have allowed federal judges to issue restrictions.

"The critical point is that Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants; the delegation is what displaces federal common law," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a decision on behalf of the court, which voted 8-0 against the states. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself, because she had sat on the appeals court panel that heard the case. Ginsburg also said the states and conservation groups can go to federal court if they object to the EPA's eventual rules.

Supreme Court backs EPA over states on climate change - Green House - USATODAY.com

With regard to Libya, as we know from Dellums v. Bush (1990)

Bush had congressional aproval or doesn't the congressional vote count?

Decision
Denied Dellums' request for an injunction against presidential military action by ruling that the dispute over massive U.S. troop build-up in the Persian Gulf region was not ready for judicial attention.
Dellums v. Bush: Great American Court Cases


What you posted in regards to the court case mneans nothing because Bush had congressional approval and according to the Decision

was not ready for judicial attention.

In the case of the Dream Act, the president clearly has settled Constitutional case law on his side. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court struck down a Texas law that forbade undocumented children from attending public school.

Once again the president becomes a dictator when he can by-pass congress and create his own rules even when congress could pass what the dictator gave an dictator stamp to.I real don't give a shit how many court case's you use. 1982 How many carter appointee's were setting on the bench?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you. Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.

Armed insurrection? When have I said that? I have made myself very clear. I will never live in a dictator state nor will I allow anyone entry into my home uninvited. I don't care if they wear a badge, if they don't have a warrant there dead where they stand and they will never have a warrant because they will never have a reason to be allowed to have one.

 

[bodecea]

Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you. Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.

Armed insurrection? When have I said that? I have made myself very clear. I will never live in a dictator state nor will I allow anyone entry into my home uninvited. I don't care if they wear a badge, if they don't have a warrant there dead where they stand and they will never have a warrant because they will never have a reason to be allowed to have one.

You'll whine them to death. We know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where you stand up for your rights as an American within the law, I will stand with you. Where you have to disagree with nonviolent civil disobedience, I support your moral right to do so. Where you talk about armed insurrection, you will earn your fate.

Armed insurrection? When have I said that? I have made myself very clear. I will never live in a dictator state nor will I allow anyone entry into my home uninvited. I don't care if they wear a badge, if they don't have a warrant there dead where they stand and they will never have a warrant because they will never have a reason to be allowed to have one.

If you behave and follow the law, and merely yell like a canting fascist, no one cares. You are issuing terroristic threats to LEO here. You know that is unlawful. That is stupid.