WuWei:It’s not “equal” nor was it every intended to be. It is separation of powers, not equality of powers.
Who did the founders intend to be the most powerful branch?
Powerful how? Which founder?
WuWei: Smyrna:That was the whole point of Turley when testifying that Trump has the right, to take this dispute to the Judicial Branch to settle this. This impeachment IS…as he testified…an abuse of power…PERIOD!
That puts the judicial branch on top.
It is on top. IMO it became that way in part because Congress and the Executive are often at each others throat and they both decide it is better to let the Court decide than to battle it out based on the loyalty of the army.
There were times when one of them has been at throats with the judiciary.
Separation of powers. Separate powers. Not one above the others.
Powerful how?
You’ve already answered your own question
It’s not “equal” nor was it every intended to be. It is separation of powers, not equality of powers.
Separation of powers. Separate powers. Not one above the others.
That’s not what you said earlier
It’s not “equal” nor was it every intended to be. It is separation of powers, not equality of powers.
You just proved your own statement untrue. Voting for impeachment as outlined in the Constitution is in no way an abuse of power
Correct, how about impeaching a President for obstruction of congress for refusing congressional subpoenas?
WuWei:Separation of powers. Separate powers. Not one above the others.
That’s not what you said earlier
Of course it is.
sikofit:You just proved your own statement untrue. Voting for impeachment as outlined in the Constitution is in no way an abuse of power
Correct, how about impeaching a President for obstruction of congress for refusing congressional subpoenas?
Sure?
WuWei: sikofit:You just proved your own statement untrue. Voting for impeachment as outlined in the Constitution is in no way an abuse of power
Correct, how about impeaching a President for obstruction of congress for refusing congressional subpoenas?
Sure?
What requires the executive to comply with legislative subpoenas?
Of course the House can impeach for it, which they have done. But they have no complaint if the Senate doesn’t remove. The executive does not answer to the legislative.
WuWei:Separation of powers. Separate powers. Not one above the others.
That’s not what you said earlier
WuWei:It’s not “equal” nor was it every intended to be. It is separation of powers, not equality of powers.
Huh? It’s exactly the same thing.
These people are traitors!
No they aren’t.
WuWei:Powerful how?
You’ve already answered your own question
WuWei:It’s not “equal” nor was it every intended to be. It is separation of powers, not equality of powers.
The House has powers
The Senate has powers
The executive has powers
The judiciary has powers
They are not the same powers.
sikofit: WuWei:Separation of powers. Separate powers. Not one above the others.
That’s not what you said earlier
WuWei:It’s not “equal” nor was it every intended to be. It is separation of powers, not equality of powers.
Huh? It’s exactly the same thing.
No its not. In one instance you’re saying they arent equal, in the other you’re saying that they are equal
sikofit: WuWei:Powerful how?
You’ve already answered your own question
WuWei:It’s not “equal” nor was it every intended to be. It is separation of powers, not equality of powers.
The House has powers
The Senate has powers
The executive has powers
The judiciary has powersThey are not the same powers.
And one of the powers of Congess is oversight of the Executive.
It seems “some” Trump supporters are reduced to arguing that Donald had an obligation to obstruct any Congressional investigation of him.
The Horowitz report proves other wise and the declass in the middle of this clown show will be the icing on the cake.
WuWei: sikofit: WuWei:Separation of powers. Separate powers. Not one above the others.
That’s not what you said earlier
WuWei:It’s not “equal” nor was it every intended to be. It is separation of powers, not equality of powers.
Huh? It’s exactly the same thing.
No its not. In one instance you’re saying they arent equal, in the other you’re saying that they are equal
No I’m not. I see your confusion and I could have been clearer. It is not more or less powerful, the power (delegated authority) is different.
The executive has the power to determine foreign policy. The legislative has the power to 1) not fund it 2) not ratify a treaty 3) in the case of the House impeach for it
Not more powerful, different powers. And they are not equal, they are checks.
WuWei: sikofit: WuWei:Powerful how?
You’ve already answered your own question
WuWei:It’s not “equal” nor was it every intended to be. It is separation of powers, not equality of powers.
The House has powers
The Senate has powers
The executive has powers
The judiciary has powersThey are not the same powers.
And one of the powers of Congess is oversight of the Executive.
No it is not. It is simply not in the Constitution.
sikofit: WuWei: sikofit: WuWei:Powerful how?
You’ve already answered your own question
WuWei:It’s not “equal” nor was it every intended to be. It is separation of powers, not equality of powers.
The House has powers
The Senate has powers
The executive has powers
The judiciary has powersThey are not the same powers.
And one of the powers of Congess is oversight of the Executive.
No it is not.
Yes it but opinion noted