The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dori on December 03, 2013, 09:41:42 AM
-
This is more of an announcement, as it's happening right now live on C-span 2.
House Judiciary Committee: Presidential Powers and the Constitution
The House Judiciary Committee hears from a panel of experts on the constitutionality and legality of actions taken by the Obama administration, including mandates in the Affordable Care Act and enforcement of immigration laws.
http://www.c-span.org/
LIVE NOW on C-SPAN2
-
:rotf:
Law...We don't need no stinking law.
The whole idea of this hearing is a joke and nothing...NOTHING...will come of it.
Anyway, I'm sure it will be entertaining. Or not. It's all context don't ya see?
-
:rotf:
Law...We don't need no stinking law.
The whole idea of this hearing is a joke and nothing...NOTHING...will come of it.
Anyway, I'm sure it will be entertaining. Or not. It's all context don't ya see?
Unfortunately, I think you're right.....and the joke ain't funny.
-
This is so bad. I've been trying to follow it, but it involves mostly lawyers.
One thing that is apparent, rather than coming to a consensus on law, the political divide is so bad they will never agree. This country is so screwed. We are supposed to be nation of laws, but it's obvious we are nothing but a nation of two parties.
I'm beginning to think Mark Levin is right about a constitutional convention. The only way we are going to get anything done ever again is for the states to take control, because the Federal government is out of control and no it no longer works.
-
This is so bad. I've been trying to follow it, but it involves mostly lawyers.
One thing that is apparent, rather than coming to a consensus on law, the political divide is so bad they will never agree. This country is so screwed. We are supposed to be nation of laws, but it's obvious we are nothing but a nation of two parties.
I'm beginning to think Mark Levin is right about a constitutional convention. The only way we are going to get anything done ever again is for the states to take control, because the Federal government is out of control and no it no longer works.
Be careful Dori, are you sure you want to become a racist, misogynist, seditious, treasonous, teabagging rethuglican?
-
I'm beginning to think Mark Levin is right about a constitutional convention. The only way we are going to get anything done ever again is for the states to take control, because the Federal government is out of control and no it no longer works.
Generally speaking, I agree with the constitutional changes Levin is suggesting (I say this with heartfelt apologies to those here with whom I originally disagreed on the subject - DumbassTanker, and others). If I read Levin correctly though, he appears to believe that this Constitutional Convention would be a solution to our current runaway government, in lieu of removing unconstitutional levers of power from the Federal Government by force. My one remaining point of contention is that supposing the states convene a Convention, and amend the constitution as Levin is suggesting, what is to prevent the Federal Government - which, in ALL of it's branches, presently demonstrates active disregard for the limitations on power CURRENTLY in the text of the constitution - from simply IGNORING the new amendments which this hypothetical Convention might vote out? Or worse...
-
Generally speaking, I agree with the constitutional changes Levin is suggesting (I say this with heartfelt apologies to those here with whom I originally disagreed on the subject - DumbassTanker, and others). If I read Levin correctly though, he appears to believe that this Constitutional Convention would be a solution to our current runaway government, in lieu of removing unconstitutional levers of power from the Federal Government by force. My one remaining point of contention is that supposing the states convene a Convention, and amend the constitution as Levin is suggesting, what is to prevent the Federal Government - which, in ALL of it's branches, presently demonstrates active disregard for the limitations on power CURRENTLY in the text of the constitution - from simply IGNORING the new amendments which this hypothetical Convention might vote out? Or worse...
If they take the underlined approach, then we slap then in the face with our silk gloves and challenge them to a duel on the field of honor. Don't worry about it. Since we issued the challenge, they get to pick the weapons. They will pick wet noodles at 30 paces or dirty dish clothes at 10 paces.....or if it's one of Bonnie Fwanks or Obama's buddies , limp dicks at three inches.
-
If they take the underlined approach, then we slap then in the face with our silk gloves and challenge them to a duel on the field of honor. Don't worry about it. Since we issued the challenge, they get to pick the weapons. They will pick wet noodles at 30 paces or dirty dish clothes at 10 paces.....or if it's one of Bonnie Fwanks or Obama's buddies , limp dicks at three inches.
Is it considered bad form to have my silk glove padded with about 3 pounds of lead shot? I can never remember... :-)
-
Generally speaking, I agree with the constitutional changes Levin is suggesting (I say this with heartfelt apologies to those here with whom I originally disagreed on the subject - DumbassTanker, and others). If I read Levin correctly though, he appears to believe that this Constitutional Convention would be a solution to our current runaway government, in lieu of removing unconstitutional levers of power from the Federal Government by force. My one remaining point of contention is that supposing the states convene a Convention, and amend the constitution as Levin is suggesting, what is to prevent the Federal Government - which, in ALL of it's branches, presently demonstrates active disregard for the limitations on power CURRENTLY in the text of the constitution - from simply IGNORING the new amendments which this hypothetical Convention might vote out? Or worse...
Did you catch any of the hearing yesterday?
There were four witnesses. All from different constitutional law think tanks. It seems the consensus is, as far as the House is concerned, there is nothing they can do to stop Obama from acting like an Imperial president, short of Impeaching him. But in order to remove him from office, there would have to be a trial held in the Senate and voted for by 2/3rds. Well that will never happen. So we are stuck with an Imperial president that can pretty much do whatever he wants.
-
Did you catch any of the hearing yesterday?
There were four witnesses. All from different constitutional law think tanks. It seems the consensus is, as far as the House is concerned, there is nothing they can do to stop Obama from acting like an Imperial president, short of Impeaching him. But in order to remove him from office, there would have to be a trial held in the Senate and voted for by 2/3rds. Well that will never happen. So we are stuck with an Imperial president that can pretty much do whatever he wants.
Nope, I don't have time for tail-chasing in the run up to the holidays. (Refinery expansion project due out the door in 6 weeks.)
-
Is it considered bad form to have my silk glove padded with about 3 pounds of lead shot? I can never remember... :-)
Not if you add a few sharp rusty nails.