header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Fake News: Gun Control Variety

 (Read 1927 times)

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 8405
  • Liked:
Re: Fake News: Gun Control Variety
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2018, 08:03:18 PM »
 
Even after I explain the Constitution to you, you still insist on bitterly clinging to your ignorance.
 
Do you really still not understand why it's irrelevant whether or not you call something a rule or a law, that what actually matters is what the rule or law says?  

Explain, oh wise one, what about Merrick Garland was unconstitutional?  

Conservatives ignored Article Two of the U.S. Constitution.  

Don't tell me you're going to start denying facts again.  

VolRage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2987
  • Liked:
Re: Fake News: Gun Control Variety
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2018, 08:08:28 PM »
Holy s#it Fuzzy. Are you retarded? What Obama implemented WAS NOT LAW. Therefore the next president can rescind it. Why? Because what Obama implemented didn’t nail down what was considered a mental illness (the criteria to take away a person’s right to bear arms). It was broadly sweeping and gave the gubermint the ability to do whatever in the hell they wanted to regarding mental illness vs your gun rights. It’s pretty damn simple to understand.

ATexasVol

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 4772
  • Liked:
Re: Fake News: Gun Control Variety
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2018, 09:12:12 PM »

Even after I explain the Constitution to you, you still insist on bitterly clinging to your ignorance.
 
Do you really still not understand why it's irrelevant whether or not you call something a rule or a law, that what actually matters is what the rule or law says?  

You clearly don't understand, or worse - don't care about, the separation of powers.  


Explain, oh wise one, what about Merrick Garland was unconstitutional?  

Conservatives ignored Article Two of the U.S. Constitution.  

Don't tell me you're going to start denying facts again.  

Fuzz, you should have stopped digging when you had a chance.  

I don't know what liberal rag you read that said Republicans violated Article II of the Constitution, but I read Article II, and here's what I presume is the clause in question:

Clause 2: Advice and Consent Clause[edit]
The President exercises the powers in the Advice and Consent Clause with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Quote
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Nothing Congress did violated this clause.   The Senate did not care to vote on Merrick's nomination.  Yes, it would have been better had they done a straight down vote, but if you maintain that position you're just quibbling.   Come to think about it, that's about all you do.   

But it's interesting that you are now a big lover of Article II of the US Constitution.  Here's the rest of that particular clause:

Treaties[edit]
Main article: Treaty Clause
The President may enter the United States into treaties, but they are not effective until ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.[12] In Article II however, the Constitution is not very explicit about the termination of treaties. The first abrogation of a treaty occurred in 1798, when Congress passed a law terminating a 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France.[13] In the nineteenth century, several Presidents terminated treaties after Congress passed resolutions requesting the same.[14] In 1854, however, President Franklin Pierce terminated a treaty with Denmark with the consent of the Senate alone. A Senate committee ruled that it was correct procedure for the President to terminate treaties after being authorized by the Senate alone, and not the entire Congress. President Pierce's successors, however, returned to the former procedure of obtaining authorization from both Houses. Some Presidents have claimed to themselves the exclusive power of terminating treaties. The first unambiguous case of a President terminating a treaty without authorization, granted prior to or after the termination, occurred when Jimmy Carter terminated a treaty with the Republic of China.[15] For the first time, judicial determination was sought, but the effort proved futile: the Supreme Court could not find a majority agreeing on any particular principle, and therefore instructed the trial court to dismiss the case.

So since you're a Constitutional scholar now (like your man, Barack Obama), you must realize that the treaty with Iran was done unconstitutionally.   The Senate did not ratify the deal.   But Obama did it anyway, sending $11.9 Billion to the biggest sponsor of state terrorism in the world.   

Please let me know when you've grown weary of having your butt handed to you.


highVOLtage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3061
  • Liked:
Re: Fake News: Gun Control Variety
« Reply #31 on: February 22, 2018, 03:08:35 AM »
fuzzy must have thought Obama was a king.

Which kind of explains the collective freak-out of the lefties about Trump being in the White House, if they ignorantly think Trump can make law on a whim.


fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 8405
  • Liked:
Re: Fake News: Gun Control Variety
« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2018, 07:45:54 AM »
fuzzy must have thought Obama was a king.

Fuzzy only wishes Obama were king.

if they ignorantly think Trump can make law on a whim.

Law?  Wait, I thought it was a rule ?  What we call it is crucial, right?  Besides, we're not talking about Trump making laws, we're talking about him rescinding them (or rules, regulations, if you prefer).  So get your facts straight.  




highVOLtage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3061
  • Liked:
Re: Fake News: Gun Control Variety
« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2018, 08:36:39 AM »
fuzzy: "Law?  Wait, I thought it was a rule? What we call it is crucial, right?"

That's exactly right fuzzy. You're the only one here arguing otherwise:

fuzzy wrote: "it's irrelevant whether or not you call something a rule or a law, that what actually matters is what the rule or law says"

fuzzy: "Besides, we're not talking about Trump making laws, we're talking about him rescinding them"

He can't do that either.  POTUS cannot make a law unilaterally.  And POTUS cannot rescind a law unilaterally.  Those are a function of the Legislative Branch of our federal government.

fuzzy: "Fuzzy only wishes Obama were king."

And that is a fundamental difference between you and me:
I do not want nor need any man to be my king.

<br /><br />
« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 08:53:53 AM by highVOLtage »

 

Associate Links/Search