Escape from Elba

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Poll

What do you expect on Wednesday?

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.
- 5 (45.5%)
A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.
- 5 (45.5%)
A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.
- 0 (0%)
More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.
- 0 (0%)
A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.
- 1 (9.1%)
More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.
- 0 (0%)
DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.
- 0 (0%)
Huge disruption to the day.
- 0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM


Pages: 1 ... 735 736 [737] 738 739 ... 4288

Author Topic: Trump Administration  (Read 2042149 times)

REDSTATEWARD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5939
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11040 on: March 10, 2019, 09:31:18 PM »


"Article III" - ya mean this one??

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Old Business   
That would be the 3rd Amendment.

« Last Edit: March 10, 2019, 09:34:02 PM by REDSTATEWARD »
Logged

josh

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18995
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11041 on: March 10, 2019, 09:54:35 PM »

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.
Dream on.

Another of those cogent arguments for which you are famous.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Congress would be establishing an inferior court to consider redistricting.
Unconstitutional. Redistributing is the province of the states.
Quote
What is it that makes you think the proposed tribunal would violate Article III?
Read it

I quoted it. I read it. I rebutted your unformed claim.

So, no reading it does not provide guidance for why Article III would be violated.

If you want to make a claim to be discussing, provide something of substance to support your argument, given that Congress has the power to create lower courts and has done so, including courts with restricted purview.



As for your bizarre contention that Congress does not get to weigh in on the redistricting process, I am pretty sure the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and attendant court cases testing it like South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966) and Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969) put your argument to rest. Even the comparatively recent SCOTUS case that wiped out a bunch of oversight stupidly did not declare that the concepts that required them were unconstitutional, just the use of antiquated data was.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2019, 10:23:08 PM by josh »
Logged
The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury." ~Lindsey Graham

josh

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18995
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11042 on: March 10, 2019, 09:57:09 PM »

I believe you have cited the 3rd and 10th Amendments. Not Article III.
No, I cited Article III and the 10th Amendment
Quote
Note.Red has never viewed the usurpation of a state's right to run an election.that was Bush v. Gore as a problem.
No. It wasn't

You are internally consistent, if not legally consistent. You defend the GOP line.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2019, 10:04:23 PM by josh »
Logged
The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury." ~Lindsey Graham

josh

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18995
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11043 on: March 10, 2019, 09:59:12 PM »

Oily, you are not the first to get Articles (they came first) and Amendments crossed.  The amendments, as their name suggests, have to amend something pre-existing.
I didn't confuse either.
Quote

(also don't, as i did once, confuse the Articles with the articles of confederation, which predated the Constitution)
Huh?

Those were to Oilcan, DimBulb.

See where it says "Oily?"

Your reading comprehension needs work.

Still.

I wonder if you can admit you read that wrong!
Logged
The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury." ~Lindsey Graham

REDSTATEWARD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5939
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11044 on: March 10, 2019, 10:07:08 PM »

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.
Dream on.

Another of those cogent arguments for which you are famous.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Congress would be establishing an inferior court to consider redistricting.
Unconstitutional. Redistributing is the province of the states.
Quote
What is it that makes you think the proposed tribunal would violate Article III?
Read it

I quoted it. I read it. I rebutted your unformed claim.
Being kind i would say you ' misread' Article III.

Quote
So, no reading it does not provide guidance for why Article III would be violated.

If you want to make a claim to be discussing, provide something of substance to support your argument, given that Congress has the power to create lower courts and has done so, including courts with restricted purview.



As for your bizarre contention that Conress does not get to weigh in on the redistricting process, I am pretty sure the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and attendant court cases testing it like South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966) and Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969) put your argument to rest. Even the comparatively recent SCOTUS case that wiped out a bunch of oversight stupidly did not declare that the concepts that required them were unconstitutional, just the use of antiquated data was.
Let me know when you want to add bananas, apricots, and moonbeams to the above apples and oranges stupidity.
Logged

LarryBnDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11355
    • View Profile
    • The Shinbone Star
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11045 on: March 10, 2019, 10:08:26 PM »

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.
Dream on.

Another of those cogent arguments for which you are famous.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Congress would be establishing an inferior court to consider redistricting.
Unconstitutional. Redistricting  is the province of the states.
Quote
What is it that makes you think the proposed tribunal would violate Article III?
Read it

Gerrymandering election districts to benefit one party regardless of population apportionment is constitutional, right?
It is.

This is why Mitch McConnell stole the Gorsuch seat, installed Kavanaugh and is pack8ng 5he federal judiciary with unqualified true believers.

They need to lock in conservative bullshit regardless the outcomes of elections.

You’re quite the Patriot...
Logged

REDSTATEWARD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5939
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11046 on: March 10, 2019, 10:20:15 PM »

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.
Dream on.

Another of those cogent arguments for which you are famous.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Congress would be establishing an inferior court to consider redistricting.
Unconstitutional. Redistricting  is the province of the states.
Quote
What is it that makes you think the proposed tribunal would violate Article III?
Read it

Gerrymandering election districts to benefit one party regardless of population apportionment is constitutional, right?
It is.

This is why Mitch McConnell stole the Gorsuch seat, installed Kavanaugh and is pack8ng 5he federal judiciary with unqualified true believers.

They need to lock in conservative bullshit regardless the outcomes of elections.
If so then win elections.
Logged

josh

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18995
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11047 on: March 10, 2019, 11:47:42 PM »

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.
Dream on.

Another of those cogent arguments for which you are famous.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Congress would be establishing an inferior court to consider redistricting.
Unconstitutional. Redistributing is the province of the states.
Quote
What is it that makes you think the proposed tribunal would violate Article III?
Read it

I quoted it. I read it. I rebutted your unformed claim.
Being kind i would say you ' misread' Article III.

Quote
So, no reading it does not provide guidance for why Article III would be violated.

If you want to make a claim to be discussing, provide something of substance to support your argument, given that Congress has the power to create lower courts and has done so, including courts with restricted purview.



As for your bizarre contention that Congress does not get to weigh in on the redistricting process, I am pretty sure the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and attendant court cases testing it like South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966) and Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969) put your argument to rest. Even the comparatively recent SCOTUS case that wiped out a bunch of oversight stupidly did not declare that the concepts that required them were unconstitutional, just the use of antiquated data was.
Let me know when you want to add bananas, apricots, and moonbeams to the above apples and oranges stupidity.

Of course you would say I misread it - but you would offer no explanation or citation for why your interpretation of the (pretty clear) language is right and mine is wrong. You would just say that mine is wrong.

Congress is allowed to establish inferior courts without more permission from the Constitution than is already offered. Quotation presented by me. You claim I am wrong, but not why or how.

Congress is allowed to establish guidelines on how redistricting is done, as SCOTUS has already ruled. Citations offered by me. None refuted by you. No counter citations presented by you.

Yes, SCOTUS retains the ability to hear appeals of those lower courts, including the one proposed in HR1.

Still waiting for you to spell out your evidence to support your (bogus) claim.

And ditto your description of the Voting Rights Act as about apples and oranges, but sans explanations for why you think they don't apply.

You're really bad at this argument thing, aren't you?!
Logged
The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury." ~Lindsey Graham

LarryBnDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11355
    • View Profile
    • The Shinbone Star
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11048 on: March 11, 2019, 12:06:16 AM »

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.
Dream on.

Another of those cogent arguments for which you are famous.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Congress would be establishing an inferior court to consider redistricting.
Unconstitutional. Redistricting  is the province of the states.
Quote
What is it that makes you think the proposed tribunal would violate Article III?
Read it

Gerrymandering election districts to benefit one party regardless of population apportionment is constitutional, right?
It is.

This is why Mitch McConnell stole the Gorsuch seat, installed Kavanaugh and is pack8ng 5he federal judiciary with unqualified true believers.

They need to lock in conservative bullshit regardless the outcomes of elections.
If so then win elections.

I think you’re missing the point...
Logged

josh

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18995
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11049 on: March 11, 2019, 12:08:19 AM »

https://www.newsweek.com/katrina-pierson-black-staffers-trump-abraham-lincoln-administration-racism-1357621

To defend the Trump administration from an accusation of having few or no African-Americans in the West Wing, after she claimed there were quite a few, she turned to this brilliant defense:

"How many black staffers did Abraham Lincoln have in his West Wing?!"

She could be a conservative poster here!
Logged
The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury." ~Lindsey Graham

LarryBnDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11355
    • View Profile
    • The Shinbone Star
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11050 on: March 11, 2019, 02:03:15 AM »

Logged

facilitatorn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19727
  • Bust oligopolies not unions.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11051 on: March 11, 2019, 02:19:56 AM »

After all of Red’s carefully thought out arguments the final judgement is in on HR1 and the filth who oppose it.

http://www.salon.com/2019/03/08/republicans-freak-out-over-hr1-they-dont-want-america-to-have-fair-elections/
Logged
Republicans will deliver only poverty and world war

LarryBnDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11355
    • View Profile
    • The Shinbone Star
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11052 on: March 11, 2019, 02:21:39 AM »

What about Beto so scares Club for Growth they’ll praise the Kenyan Socialist Antichrist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFkXBprH9wY
Logged

barton

  • Guest
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11053 on: March 11, 2019, 11:24:50 AM »

Good one, judge!


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/10/jeanine-pirro-ilhan-omar-hijab-1214844

Quote
“We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar," the network said in a statement. "They do not reflect those of the network and we have addressed the matter with her directly.”

Those floggings with a moistened noodle can be quite painful! 
Logged

barton

  • Guest
Re: Trump Administration
« Reply #11054 on: March 11, 2019, 11:31:00 AM »

After all of Red’s carefully thought out arguments the final judgement is in on HR1 and the filth who oppose it.

http://www.salon.com/2019/03/08/republicans-freak-out-over-hr1-they-dont-want-america-to-have-fair-elections/

Quote
Not only is McConnell refusing to bring the bill up for a vote in the Senate, he is reportedly waging an all-out campaign to intimidate any Republican senators out of backing it in public.

He is one very frightened little turtle-man. 

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 735 736 [737] 738 739 ... 4288