Political Hypocrisy?

[Anonymous]

I’m having a lot of trouble with: why do you expect the US to act like a democracy? That’s downright scary.

For not MAGA OP, you have certainly swallowed all the MAGA talking points b

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The U.S. was established as a democratic republic. Trump is destroying that. This sort of question suggests a severe lack of knowledge on your part and causes me to doubt whether or not you are really acting in good faith. Trump has already marginalized the legislative branch by relying on illegal executive orders. He is now trying to hobble the judiciary branch. By establishing an executive branch that has no checks, Trump is establishing a dictatorship. That should be obvious to you."

DP.

You talk about hobbling the judiciary.

Didn't Joe Biden hobble the legislative branch when he refused to enforce the border controls as head of the executive branch?

Review the Vesting Clause of the Constitution. Bringing every issue up in the judiciary because you believe it isn't an open question doesn't stand.

Even the Ninth Circuit court is unanimously pushing back against the very ideas you espouse. See the decision by them this past week.

I think the Republicans distort on this. They attacked Biden for "not enforcing border controls" even when it was for reasons beyond his control. For example, Republicans seem to have a problem acknowledging that Title 42 border controls were tied to the pandemic and expired. They instead falsely claim that it was somehow Biden's doing. They also refuse to acknowledge that some of what Biden tried doing on the borders was slapped down by the courts. They also refuse to acknowledge that MOST of the problem at the border are a function of 40 years of CONGRESSIONAL dysfunction and refusal to fix things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

Ah but what is executive power? It's the power granted to the President by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts, and nothing more. Not whatever the President wants it to be. We are not a dictatorship. The President does not have whatever unlimited powers he wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

Ah but what is executive power? It's the power granted to the President by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts, and nothing more. Not whatever the President wants it to be. We are not a dictatorship. The President does not have whatever unlimited powers he wants.

No. Read duties of the president in the Constitution. As the legislature, you don't redefine the duties of a president by definitions and statutes. It's stated in the language.

You don't create federal cabinet level departments under the executive branch and then tell the administrative state they have power over the president. No way in hell is that how our govt is supposed to run.

US codes and statutes do NOT obviate the Constitution. Ever.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

Ah but what is executive power? It's the power granted to the President by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts, and nothing more. Not whatever the President wants it to be. We are not a dictatorship. The President does not have whatever unlimited powers he wants.

No. Read duties of the president in the Constitution. As the legislature, you don't redefine the duties of a president by definitions and statutes. It's stated in the language.

You don't create federal cabinet level departments under the executive branch and then tell the administrative state they have power over the president. No way in hell is that how our govt is supposed to run.

US codes and statutes do NOT obviate the Constitution. Ever.

The bold is true. But, you seem to have missed the fact that if the legislative branch approves legislation and the President signs and that the judiciary branch finds that it is constitutional, the statute is not obviating the Constitution. The so-called administrative state does not have power over the President but the President does not have the power to ignore laws.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

Ah but what is executive power? It's the power granted to the President by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts, and nothing more. Not whatever the President wants it to be. We are not a dictatorship. The President does not have whatever unlimited powers he wants.

No. Read duties of the president in the Constitution. As the legislature, you don't redefine the duties of a president by definitions and statutes. It's stated in the language.

You don't create federal cabinet level departments under the executive branch and then tell the administrative state they have power over the president. No way in hell is that how our govt is supposed to run.

US codes and statutes do NOT obviate the Constitution. Ever.

The bold is true. But, you seem to have missed the fact that if the legislative branch approves legislation and the President signs and that the judiciary branch finds that it is constitutional, the statute is not obviating the Constitution. The so-called administrative state does not have power over the President but the President does not have the power to ignore laws.

Look at what you are arguing though.

Merrick Garland sues Texas to state that only the federal govt can enforce immigration law. It's decided in the federal govt's favor.

Two years later when ICE is now doing their jobs, the same side of the aisle is suddenly whining about states rights and how DJT is a king!

Does everything have to be relitigated and re-lawfared when control of the govt changes parties?

Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

Ah but what is executive power? It's the power granted to the President by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts, and nothing more. Not whatever the President wants it to be. We are not a dictatorship. The President does not have whatever unlimited powers he wants.

No. Read duties of the president in the Constitution. As the legislature, you don't redefine the duties of a president by definitions and statutes. It's stated in the language.

You don't create federal cabinet level departments under the executive branch and then tell the administrative state they have power over the president. No way in hell is that how our govt is supposed to run.

US codes and statutes do NOT obviate the Constitution. Ever.

The bold is true. But, you seem to have missed the fact that if the legislative branch approves legislation and the President signs and that the judiciary branch finds that it is constitutional, the statute is not obviating the Constitution. The so-called administrative state does not have power over the President but the President does not have the power to ignore laws.

If the administrative state does not have power over the president, then why was DJT dragged into court over classified documents. HE embodies the classification since he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Classifications and state secrets aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but the president IS the top dog in the executive branch, which the military and IC fall under. Almost ALL federal departments, bureaus and agencies fall under the executive branch and the cabinets do also.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

Ah but what is executive power? It's the power granted to the President by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts, and nothing more. Not whatever the President wants it to be. We are not a dictatorship. The President does not have whatever unlimited powers he wants.

No. Read duties of the president in the Constitution. As the legislature, you don't redefine the duties of a president by definitions and statutes. It's stated in the language.

You don't create federal cabinet level departments under the executive branch and then tell the administrative state they have power over the president. No way in hell is that how our govt is supposed to run.

US codes and statutes do NOT obviate the Constitution. Ever.

The bold is true. But, you seem to have missed the fact that if the legislative branch approves legislation and the President signs and that the judiciary branch finds that it is constitutional, the statute is not obviating the Constitution. The so-called administrative state does not have power over the President but the President does not have the power to ignore laws.

If the administrative state does not have power over the president, then why was DJT dragged into court over classified documents. HE embodies the classification since he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Classifications and state secrets aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but the president IS the top dog in the executive branch, which the military and IC fall under. Almost ALL federal departments, bureaus and agencies fall under the executive branch and the cabinets do also.

Simple. Trump didn't follow the law. MAGAs frequently confuse the head of the executive branch with a dictator. Or, more accurately, only have that confusion when Trump is President. Otherwise, you guys don't think the President has any power. There is a legal mechanism of declassifying documents. Trump did not follow that procedure. Had Trump returned the documents when asked, his violation of the law would not have been a big deal. However, he refused to comply and that's what resulted in problems.

We are supposed to have a government of laws, not men. Trump is a President, bound by laws. Not a king. Please try to remember that.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

Ah but what is executive power? It's the power granted to the President by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts, and nothing more. Not whatever the President wants it to be. We are not a dictatorship. The President does not have whatever unlimited powers he wants.

No. Read duties of the president in the Constitution. As the legislature, you don't redefine the duties of a president by definitions and statutes. It's stated in the language.

You don't create federal cabinet level departments under the executive branch and then tell the administrative state they have power over the president. No way in hell is that how our govt is supposed to run.

US codes and statutes do NOT obviate the Constitution. Ever.

The bold is true. But, you seem to have missed the fact that if the legislative branch approves legislation and the President signs and that the judiciary branch finds that it is constitutional, the statute is not obviating the Constitution. The so-called administrative state does not have power over the President but the President does not have the power to ignore laws.

Look at what you are arguing though.

Merrick Garland sues Texas to state that only the federal govt can enforce immigration law. It's decided in the federal govt's favor.

Two years later when ICE is now doing their jobs, the same side of the aisle is suddenly whining about states rights and how DJT is a king!

Does everything have to be relitigated and re-lawfared when control of the govt changes parties?

Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men?

I don't think anybody is arguing that the Federal government should not or cannot enforce immigration law. Rather, what is being contested are the threats being made by Trump to punish states that do not do his bidding and his seizure of California's National Guard against the wishes of the Governor of California. How would you have reacted if Biden had deployed the Texas National Guard to protect abortion clinics?

Are you suggesting that Roe v Wade should not have been relitigated? Do you believe that Chevron should not have been relitigated? Or is your issue with relitigation only with cases you don't want relitigated?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

Ah but what is executive power? It's the power granted to the President by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts, and nothing more. Not whatever the President wants it to be. We are not a dictatorship. The President does not have whatever unlimited powers he wants.

No. Read duties of the president in the Constitution. As the legislature, you don't redefine the duties of a president by definitions and statutes. It's stated in the language.

You don't create federal cabinet level departments under the executive branch and then tell the administrative state they have power over the president. No way in hell is that how our govt is supposed to run.

US codes and statutes do NOT obviate the Constitution. Ever.

The bold is true. But, you seem to have missed the fact that if the legislative branch approves legislation and the President signs and that the judiciary branch finds that it is constitutional, the statute is not obviating the Constitution. The so-called administrative state does not have power over the President but the President does not have the power to ignore laws.

If the administrative state does not have power over the president, then why was DJT dragged into court over classified documents. HE embodies the classification since he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Classifications and state secrets aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but the president IS the top dog in the executive branch, which the military and IC fall under. Almost ALL federal departments, bureaus and agencies fall under the executive branch and the cabinets do also.

Simple. Trump didn't follow the law. MAGAs frequently confuse the head of the executive branch with a dictator. Or, more accurately, only have that confusion when Trump is President. Otherwise, you guys don't think the President has any power. There is a legal mechanism of declassifying documents. Trump did not follow that procedure. Had Trump returned the documents when asked, his violation of the law would not have been a big deal. However, he refused to comply and that's what resulted in problems.

We are supposed to have a government of laws, not men. Trump is a President, bound by laws. Not a king. Please try to remember that.

WHAT LAW?

He IS the law! By virtue of being CICAF. HE is the Original Classification Authority by his position!

This is like an Abbott and Costello Who's on First conversation.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

Ah but what is executive power? It's the power granted to the President by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts, and nothing more. Not whatever the President wants it to be. We are not a dictatorship. The President does not have whatever unlimited powers he wants.

No. Read duties of the president in the Constitution. As the legislature, you don't redefine the duties of a president by definitions and statutes. It's stated in the language.

You don't create federal cabinet level departments under the executive branch and then tell the administrative state they have power over the president. No way in hell is that how our govt is supposed to run.

US codes and statutes do NOT obviate the Constitution. Ever.

The bold is true. But, you seem to have missed the fact that if the legislative branch approves legislation and the President signs and that the judiciary branch finds that it is constitutional, the statute is not obviating the Constitution. The so-called administrative state does not have power over the President but the President does not have the power to ignore laws.

If the administrative state does not have power over the president, then why was DJT dragged into court over classified documents. HE embodies the classification since he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Classifications and state secrets aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but the president IS the top dog in the executive branch, which the military and IC fall under. Almost ALL federal departments, bureaus and agencies fall under the executive branch and the cabinets do also.

Simple. Trump didn't follow the law. MAGAs frequently confuse the head of the executive branch with a dictator. Or, more accurately, only have that confusion when Trump is President. Otherwise, you guys don't think the President has any power. There is a legal mechanism of declassifying documents. Trump did not follow that procedure. Had Trump returned the documents when asked, his violation of the law would not have been a big deal. However, he refused to comply and that's what resulted in problems.

We are supposed to have a government of laws, not men. Trump is a President, bound by laws. Not a king. Please try to remember that.

WHAT LAW?

He IS the law! By virtue of being CICAF. HE is the Original Classification Authority by his position!

This is like an Abbott and Costello Who's on First conversation.

No, he is not the law. You have again confused a president with a king. Please try not to make that mistake.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

Ah but what is executive power? It's the power granted to the President by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts, and nothing more. Not whatever the President wants it to be. We are not a dictatorship. The President does not have whatever unlimited powers he wants.

No. Read duties of the president in the Constitution. As the legislature, you don't redefine the duties of a president by definitions and statutes. It's stated in the language.

You don't create federal cabinet level departments under the executive branch and then tell the administrative state they have power over the president. No way in hell is that how our govt is supposed to run.

US codes and statutes do NOT obviate the Constitution. Ever.

The bold is true. But, you seem to have missed the fact that if the legislative branch approves legislation and the President signs and that the judiciary branch finds that it is constitutional, the statute is not obviating the Constitution. The so-called administrative state does not have power over the President but the President does not have the power to ignore laws.

If the administrative state does not have power over the president, then why was DJT dragged into court over classified documents. HE embodies the classification since he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Classifications and state secrets aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but the president IS the top dog in the executive branch, which the military and IC fall under. Almost ALL federal departments, bureaus and agencies fall under the executive branch and the cabinets do also.

Simple. Trump didn't follow the law. MAGAs frequently confuse the head of the executive branch with a dictator. Or, more accurately, only have that confusion when Trump is President. Otherwise, you guys don't think the President has any power. There is a legal mechanism of declassifying documents. Trump did not follow that procedure. Had Trump returned the documents when asked, his violation of the law would not have been a big deal. However, he refused to comply and that's what resulted in problems.

We are supposed to have a government of laws, not men. Trump is a President, bound by laws. Not a king. Please try to remember that.

WHAT LAW?

He IS the law! By virtue of being CICAF. HE is the Original Classification Authority by his position!

This is like an Abbott and Costello Who's on First conversation.

No, he is not the law. You have again confused a president with a king. Please try not to make that mistake.

No, you are citing a statute that you believe override the inherent powers of a president.

[Anonymous]

LOL. You’re definitely not up for a real conversation. Nope.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

Ah but what is executive power? It's the power granted to the President by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts, and nothing more. Not whatever the President wants it to be. We are not a dictatorship. The President does not have whatever unlimited powers he wants.

No. Read duties of the president in the Constitution. As the legislature, you don't redefine the duties of a president by definitions and statutes. It's stated in the language.

You don't create federal cabinet level departments under the executive branch and then tell the administrative state they have power over the president. No way in hell is that how our govt is supposed to run.

US codes and statutes do NOT obviate the Constitution. Ever.

The bold is true. But, you seem to have missed the fact that if the legislative branch approves legislation and the President signs and that the judiciary branch finds that it is constitutional, the statute is not obviating the Constitution. The so-called administrative state does not have power over the President but the President does not have the power to ignore laws.

If the administrative state does not have power over the president, then why was DJT dragged into court over classified documents. HE embodies the classification since he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Classifications and state secrets aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but the president IS the top dog in the executive branch, which the military and IC fall under. Almost ALL federal departments, bureaus and agencies fall under the executive branch and the cabinets do also.

Simple. Trump didn't follow the law. MAGAs frequently confuse the head of the executive branch with a dictator. Or, more accurately, only have that confusion when Trump is President. Otherwise, you guys don't think the President has any power. There is a legal mechanism of declassifying documents. Trump did not follow that procedure. Had Trump returned the documents when asked, his violation of the law would not have been a big deal. However, he refused to comply and that's what resulted in problems.

We are supposed to have a government of laws, not men. Trump is a President, bound by laws. Not a king. Please try to remember that.

WHAT LAW?

He IS the law! By virtue of being CICAF. HE is the Original Classification Authority by his position!

This is like an Abbott and Costello Who's on First conversation.

No, he is not the law. You have again confused a president with a king. Please try not to make that mistake.

No, you are citing a statute that you believe override the inherent powers of a president.

Your position seems to be that the President can declassify something by simply thinking about it and keeping the declassification entirely in his head. The problem with that is that nobody knows, nor can he prove, that the declassification took place. Do you really believe that is an acceptable process?

Imagine that tomorrow Joe Biden releases U.S. contingency plans for a U.S. attack on Iran and says that he declassified them when he was President. Would you consider that legal? Would you defend Biden for acting within his inherent powers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

Ah but what is executive power? It's the power granted to the President by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts, and nothing more. Not whatever the President wants it to be. We are not a dictatorship. The President does not have whatever unlimited powers he wants.

No. Read duties of the president in the Constitution. As the legislature, you don't redefine the duties of a president by definitions and statutes. It's stated in the language.

You don't create federal cabinet level departments under the executive branch and then tell the administrative state they have power over the president. No way in hell is that how our govt is supposed to run.

US codes and statutes do NOT obviate the Constitution. Ever.

The bold is true. But, you seem to have missed the fact that if the legislative branch approves legislation and the President signs and that the judiciary branch finds that it is constitutional, the statute is not obviating the Constitution. The so-called administrative state does not have power over the President but the President does not have the power to ignore laws.

If the administrative state does not have power over the president, then why was DJT dragged into court over classified documents. HE embodies the classification since he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Classifications and state secrets aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but the president IS the top dog in the executive branch, which the military and IC fall under. Almost ALL federal departments, bureaus and agencies fall under the executive branch and the cabinets do also.

These were documents that TRUMP'S administration said were top secret and classified. Meaning they needed to stay in the purview of the government's national security apparatus, and not stacked up in bankers boxes in a Mar A Lago closet where any random guest could have access to them. When his term ended he became a civilian, not President, not executive branch, not anything - civilian. Those documents should never have come with him.