Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jmmengel]

 Constitutional issues

 What were the constitutional issues in Snyder?  They were interpreting a statute in US Code 18, but with reference to what part of the Constitution?

Article Two

Article II?  Presidential powers?  Sorry, I don't see the connection to Snyder v US.  It is comforting to have a constitutional scholar who can explain that for us!

Article One, my typo.
But I suspect you did not need me to tell you.
Well, maybe you did.

[jmmengel]

 Constitutional issues

 What were the constitutional issues in Snyder?  They were interpreting a statute in US Code 18, but with reference to what part of the Constitution?

Article One

Article II?  Presidential powers?  Sorry, I don't see the connection to Snyder v US.  It is comforting to have a constitutional scholar who can explain that for us!

[Hairy Lime]

 Constitutional issues

 What were the constitutional issues in Snyder?  They were interpreting a statute in US Code 18, but with reference to what part of the Constitution?

Article Two

Article II?  Presidential powers?  Sorry, I don't see the connection to Snyder v US.  It is comforting to have a constitutional scholar who can explain that for us!

Article One, my typo.
But I suspect you did not need me to tell you.
Well, maybe you did.

That Constitutional provision is not relevant to a question of statutory interpretation either.

[Hairy Lime]

So, you're a Maga guy.  Doesn't it feel good to admit it?

I am a MAGA guy? You are delusional.

Of course you are. Every post of yours screams it.

Ah.  Screams so loud you can not find one.

No fish for you!

still looking?

Nope. Not playing your game. No fish for you!

[jmmengel]

So, you're a Maga guy.  Doesn't it feel good to admit it?

I am a MAGA guy? You are delusional.

Of course you are. Every post of yours screams it.

Ah.  Screams so loud you can not find one.

No fish for you!

still looking?

Nope. Not playing your game. No fish for you!

I do not have a game.

[Oil Filter]

 Constitutional issues

 What were the constitutional issues in Snyder?  They were interpreting a statute in US Code 18, but with reference to what part of the Constitution?

Article Two

Article II?  Presidential powers?  Sorry, I don't see the connection to Snyder v US.  It is comforting to have a constitutional scholar who can explain that for us!

Article One, my typo.
But I suspect you did not need me to tell you.
Well, maybe you did.

Hard to imagine a typo where I would hit the letters t, w, o instead of o, n, e.  I think you meant mistake, rather than typo, but I haven't seen you admit mistakes, so I guess it has to be a mere slip of the fingers. 

[Oil Filter]

I am looking forward to further developments of the GOP Mentaculus, which will provide a probability map of the universe in which Trump wins, ends inflation, brings peace in Ukraine and the Middle East, disproves anthropogenic global warming and solves our nation's immigration problems. 

[Hairy Lime]

So, you're a Maga guy.  Doesn't it feel good to admit it?

I am a MAGA guy? You are delusional.

Of course you are. Every post of yours screams it.

Ah.  Screams so loud you can not find one.

No fish for you!

still looking?

Nope. Not playing your game. No fish for you!

I do not have a game.

You don't have game, for sure. Or formatting skills.

[jmmengel]

So, you're a Maga guy.  Doesn't it feel good to admit it?

I am a MAGA guy? You are delusional.

Of course you are. Every post of yours screams it.

Ah.  Screams so loud you can not find one.

No fish for you!

still looking?

Nope. Not playing your game. No fish for you!

I do not have a game.

You don't have game, for sure. Or formatting skills.

Boo boo.

[facilitatorn]

Boo boo.

That is what you get for bumping your soft shit filled head against objective reality. No wonder it scares you so much.

[jmmengel]

 Constitutional issues

 What were the constitutional issues in Snyder?  They were interpreting a statute in US Code 18, but with reference to what part of the Constitution?

Article Two

Article II?  Presidential powers?  Sorry, I don't see the connection to Snyder v US.  It is comforting to have a constitutional scholar who can explain that for us!

Article One, my typo.
But I suspect you did not need me to tell you.
Well, maybe you did.

That Constitutional provision is not relevant to a question of statutory interpretation either.

Of course it is.

[Hairy Lime]

 Constitutional issues

 What were the constitutional issues in Snyder?  They were interpreting a statute in US Code 18, but with reference to what part of the Constitution?

Article Two

Article II?  Presidential powers?  Sorry, I don't see the connection to Snyder v US.  It is comforting to have a constitutional scholar who can explain that for us!

Article One, my typo.
But I suspect you did not need me to tell you.
Well, maybe you did.

That Constitutional provision is not relevant to a question of statutory interpretation either.

Of course it is.

LOL. No it is not.

[jmmengel]

 Constitutional issues

 What were the constitutional issues in Snyder?  They were interpreting a statute in US Code 18, but with reference to what part of the Constitution?

Article Two

Article II?  Presidential powers?  Sorry, I don't see the connection to Snyder v US.  It is comforting to have a constitutional scholar who can explain that for us!

Article One, my typo.
But I suspect you did not need me to tell you.
Well, maybe you did.

That Constitutional provision is not relevant to a question of statutory interpretation either.

Of course it is.

LOL. No it is not.

Of course it is.

[Hairy Lime]

 Constitutional issues

 What were the constitutional issues in Snyder?  They were interpreting a statute in US Code 18, but with reference to what part of the Constitution?

Article Two

Article II?  Presidential powers?  Sorry, I don't see the connection to Snyder v US.  It is comforting to have a constitutional scholar who can explain that for us!

Article One, my typo.
But I suspect you did not need me to tell you.
Well, maybe you did.

That Constitutional provision is not relevant to a question of statutory interpretation either.

Of course it is.

LOL. No it is not.

Of course it is.

LOL. No it is not.

[facilitatorn]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/28/uber-lyft-massachusetts-pay-benefits-deal