10 Sep '09 15:04>
Originally posted by utherpendragonI think not.
In other words [czars are] unconstitutional.
Originally posted by joe beyserComplete non-sequitur, joe.
FMF thinks the supreme court writes the constitution instead of making judgements based on interpretation of a document available to all.
Originally posted by FMFDemocratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. Even though Senate rules vest most powers in the Senate majority leader, the president pro tempore is a constitutional officer, and third in line to the U.S. presidency (after the vice president and the Speaker of the House). This office is held by a Democrat, who has been serving in the Senate since before Barack Obama was even born.
Complete non-sequitur, joe.
You are so eager to try to land your lame punches that you often type utter nonsense.
Try again.
Has the case in which it's argued that czars are unconstitutional reached the U.S. Supreme Court?
Originally posted by FMFYour schrodinger's cat view of unconstitutionality is quite amusing. It reduces the supreme court to a box. It appears that in your view Obama could abolish congress and it wouldn't be unconstitutional until the supreme court made a ruling on it. You are the one trying in vain to land your feeble punches with your black belt in BS.
Complete non-sequitur, joe.
You are so eager to try to land your lame punches that you often type utter nonsense.
Try again.
Has the case in which it's argued that czars are unconstitutional reached the U.S. Supreme Court?
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou do know that Cass Sunstein was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday, right?
[b]Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. Even though Senate rules vest most powers in the Senate majority leader, the president pro tempore is a constitutional officer, and third in line to the U.S. presidency (after the vice president and the Speaker of the House). This office is held by a Democrat, who h ...[text shortened]... cifically blocking the type of centralized power that President Obama is currently exerting.[/b][/b]
Originally posted by joe beyserI'll take that as a 'no' then on the "Has the case in which it's argued that czars are unconstitutional reached the U.S. Supreme Court?" front. Thanks.
Your schrodinger's cat view of unconstitutionality is quite amusing. It reduces the supreme court to a box. It appears that in your view Obama could abolish congress and it wouldn't be unconstitutional until the supreme court made a ruling on it. You are the one trying in vain to land your feeble punches with your black belt in BS.
Originally posted by FMFOf course you know I was just using that to illustrate the point and it had nothing to do with czars. Your welcome feisty.
I'll take that as a 'no' then on the "Has the case in which it's argued that czars are unconstitutional reached the U.S. Supreme Court?" front. Thanks.
Thank you for the comparison of czars (a.k.a. technocrats) to Obama "abolishing congress". Most revealing.
Originally posted by FMFYour not doing another shrodinger cat thing again are you? Both states exist at the same time until you look in the box. Is that what you think I am thinking? Seriously though, it was the point of the way it apears you view constitutionality. Something can be unconstitutional even though it has not gone to the supreme court for ruling. Just like a shoplifter has broken the law even if he hasn't gone to court yet. He is supposed to be presumed inocent untill proven guilty but that does not change the fact he broke the law.
How can it "illustrate" the point and have "nothing to do with" it, at the same time?