It was only about a couple of years ago when the GOP was still Pro-FBI, and Republicans were proclaiming that we should not vote for anyone for President who was under FBI investigation.
So many tears in that OP.
Exactly, especially if she knew that very conservative Sean Hannityâs message board has been hijacked by limp brained nonsensical liberals!
I agree with the OP. He should do his immediately.
That IS the question, now isnât it?
INS v. Chaddah seems to support the ability of the President to directly appoint a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ See â Holding[edit]
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appealsâ judgment. In an opinion by Chief Justice Burger, the Court held that the resolution of the House of Representatives vetoing the Attorney Generalâs determination was constitutionally invalid, unenforceable, and not binding. Congress may not promulgate a statute granting to itself a legislative veto over actions of the executive branch inconsistent with the bicameralism principle and Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution.
The Court rebutted Congressâs assertions as follows: (1) § 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is severable from the rest of the act pursuant to the express severability clause § 406. The legislative history of § 244 supports the proposition that Congress, frustrated with the process of passing private laws to provide relief for deportable individuals, would likely not have been willing to retain the private law mechanism rather than ceding all power to the Attorney General. (2) The Attorney General and INS did not waive their right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute by enforcing the statute. (3) The action is a genuine case with adequate representation in favor of sustaining the act provided by the houses of Congress as amici curiae . (4) The case is a judicable question, not exempted by the political question doctrine; the constitutionality of a statute is a question for the courts.
The Court then presented its affirmative reasoning: (5) When the Constitution provides express procedures, such procedures must be strictly observed. Two such provisions are bicameralism and presentment in the enactment of law. (6) The presentment processâespecially the Presidentâs veto powerâwas intended by the Framers to provide a mechanism by which the executive branch could defend itself against legislative encroachment and could prevent ill-conceived policies. (7) Similarly, the bicameralism requirement was formulated in order to hinder congressional action and thereby prevent legislative encroachment. (8) The action of the House of Representatives is legislative in nature because (a) it modifies rights and duties of individuals outside the legislative branch; (b) the enactment would otherwise have required a private law, which is a legislative function; and (c) the nature of the action is inherently legislative. (9) When the Framers intended to authorize Congress to exercise power outside of the bicameral and presentment principles, it provided alternate procedures explicitly; other procedures cannot be admitted. (10) Because the action of the House of Representatives was legislative, but did not conform to the mode of action specifically stated by the Constitution for legislative action; it is therefore invalid, unenforceable, and not binding.
Agreeing with the Russian trolls again, I see.
1 Like
The AG is a Superior officer.
Your desperation just caused you to checkmate yourself.
AG is an inferior officer to the President⌠Do you not understand that the President is the commander in chief and head of the executive branch. While he needs congress to sign off on a major re-organizaiton of the executive branch, he wouldnât need their sign off to appoint a commission or a special counsel to investigate the DOJ, based on suspicious political behavior.
The AG is a superior officer.
Not unless he knows he has done a lot more serious illegal things than we know about. To resign on what we know about so far would be to open up every future President to wild attacks and investigations hoping to overturn the last election.
Your high opinion of Sessions is noted.
You Democrats have been pushing for impeachment since November 8, 2016 â and donât deny it â itâs all on tape. The Mueller witchhunt is not an investigation into Trump-Russia collusion â itâs a mission to find a crime (any crime for Chrissake - theyâll settle for jay walking if anyone has an iphone video) that an unreasonable jury in a 98% Democrat district would find existed, no matter how remote in time or space â hell if they could implicate him in something he did three life times ago and knew they could get away with it - they would. This is abuse of power. Trump needs to get the bull by the horns and set up a commission to go after these rogue DOJ officials and their minions â and stop them from ruining our Democracy and abusing their power to unseat a Democratically elected President!
Ok. I admit it.
1 Like
He doesnât need a special counsel for that. He can fire them any time he wants.
LOL. Is that your way of taking one for the team?
1 Like
And there is the reason for the original post folks.
Facebook, Twitter and other sites are cracking down on the propaganda so they are coming here to find posters that will gladly pass it on.
1 Like
Is there anyway to save those here who have bought into this propaganda, or should we just let them die off of natural causes? Itâd be nice to reintegrate some of the righties into societyâŚ
