|
|
|
| |
|
Comments@Ed L First of all Publius is not buddy. She is a LADY who is an excellent attorney. Her knowledge of the Constitution is unsurpassed as the articles in CFP and her web site prove. Since you say there is no such thing as a veto in the Constitution do you also say that all the roll call votes shown on TV in the last 50 or so years are invalid? It seems as though the congress answers these roll call votes as yes and no. The words yes and no are not in the Constitution as you so demonstrated in your last post. Maybe you can send a letter to Congress and nitpick them, for as you say “the law states what the law states”.Posted by Frank Oak on 09/01 at 01:11 AM | # To Publius: Sorry, Buddy, but the Law states what the law states. There is no such thing as a veto, and for you presume and teach there is, is as wrong as those that use it unlawfully and perpetuate the lie. Congress is the only law-making authority but only within it jurisdiction. The founders may have talked and written about it, but they did not put it in the Constitution. See Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2,3, stated here. "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill." Teach the facts the Constitution holds or you do a disservice to your readers. Posted by Ed L. on 08/31 at 05:49 PM | # Isn't it really funny that the Left is quick to jump the people on the Right, the Conservatives, etc., and say they are spawning a "conspiracy theory" when they voice an opinion? Under the freedom of speech intention of the Law, this voicing of opinion need not be taken to the Supreme Court (Where Standing is a political whim and not a Virtue) and we all know that someone may voice an opinion yet be taken to task for libel and slander. The "funny" part of this is that while the Left quickly climbs on the Leftist wagon when challenged, that same Left gets on national TV and calls the Tea Party Movement a "Political Party" and not a Movement and calls the TPM people a range of names from Terrorist downward. When are people going to point the accusing finger at the Left and tell them to shut the flip up and sit in the back of the bus? Hey, they say it to US and get away with it, right? Are they any better than the rest of us, we who are actually in the majority? At least we need to tell them they are nerdy twits, I'm sure they'd understand that, but then they'd just call us racist. I'm stopping now to laugh some more at the Audacity of the Left. Posted by NoCrud on 08/31 at 04:08 PM | # My conclusion of this article is that it is not an opinion piece, it is a brief, textbook exposé of elements of the Constitution that enumerate indeed the limits and expectation of presidential "powers." This could easily be printed as a Cliffs Notes type booklet on the topic. Anyone who gets "gnatty" on their superficial reading of this article would have better spent their money on a Reading Comprehension course instead of one on speed reading. Rereading it left me in awe of the writer's astuteness and orderliness as a writer which developed into appreciation for the understanding of the subject. I can also voice my appreciation for providing the level of language that most of us who are unschooled in the subject matter to understand. This article has been saved in my Political folder as reference material under a "Presidential Powers" heading. Posted by NoCrud on 08/31 at 03:55 PM | # What a piece. I've read it twice so far. Second reading helped a lot. GREAT ARTICLE. Looks like it generated a lot of comments. Thanks, you guys. I learned a LOT from this one article and it confirms my suspicions on the unlawful use of executive orders by the fraud in the White House. Posted by Stuart T. on 08/31 at 03:08 PM | # http://www.infowars.com/green-police-mafia-raid-gibson-guitars/ Green Police Mafia Raid Gibson Guitars TheAlexJonesChannel August 26, 2011 The modern environmental movement is nothing more than organized crime bent on harassing businesses while redirecting public sentiment towards petty issues rather than real enviro-catastrophes like genetic modification. From the Wall Street Journal: Federal agents swooped in on Gibson Guitar Wednesday, raiding factories and offices in Memphis and Nashville, seizing several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. The Feds are keeping mum, but in a statement yesterday Gibson’s chairman and CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, defended his company’s manufacturing policies, accusing the Justice Department of bullying the company. “The wood the government seized Wednesday is from a Forest Stewardship Council certified supplier,” he said, suggesting the Feds are using the aggressive enforcement of overly broad laws to make the company cry uncle. It isn’t the first time that agents of the Fish and Wildlife Service have come knocking at the storied maker of such iconic instruments as the Les Paul electric guitar, the J-160E acoustic-electric John Lennon played, and essential jazz-boxes such as Charlie Christian’s ES-150. In 2009 the Feds seized several guitars and pallets of wood from a Gibson factory, and both sides have been wrangling over the goods in a case with the delightful name “United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUilBDkiGG0&feature=player_embedded The main problem in this incident is that while the “Rosewood”, that has been imported from India to build these Gibson guitars – according to Agenda 21 – “It is a violation for American workers and employees of Gibson co. to work the wood to create the guitars! As you can clearly see this is nothing more than a manipulation, invented by the Globalists’ Corporations to force all business into sweat shops of their own choosing – whereby the Globalist Company is the only business that is allowed to do business and that work is supposed to be in a slave maintained 3rd world country – like China or Mexico! This Agenda 21 has been set up by “The United Nations”, and constructed - structured as an instrument to de-industrialize America, by author Maurice Strong – a Canadian Global elitist, presently living in China, guess he knows he'd be about as popular as poop on a plate, living in Canada or USA! Posted by Paul Revere on 08/31 at 01:00 PM | # Oh, for Heavens sake, Ed L! Is that your contribution to the understanding of the Constitution - to strain at gnats? In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton & Madison call it a "qualified negative" - just search "qualified negative" in The Federalist and you'll find several papers where they describe what we today call a "veto" as a "qualified negative". E.g., Federalist No. 73 (4th para). You win the prize for quibbling. Posted by Publius Huldah on 08/31 at 02:24 AM | # @ Publius Huldah > "And to the fellow who says obama can't be impeached because he isn't the lawful president: Where on Earth do you get your legal opinions?" < Where do we get our opinions? From many many writers and articles -- many of which were right here on CFP. Thanks for the great article. Posted by Lynda on 08/31 at 02:09 AM | # The President’s Enumerated Powers, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, & Executive OrdersPosted by Publius Huldah on Aug 30, 2011 at 09:40 PM
What are the Enumerated Powers of the President? On election night, November 2, 2010, Rep. John Boehner said in his victory speech: More... Post a Comment on: The President’s Enumerated Powers, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, & Executive OrdersCommenting is not available in this channel entry. Next entries comments: Warren Buffet; Tax Shirker and Hypocrite Previous entries comments: Coddling Note from the Editor: This section is for comments from readers of canadafreepress.com. Please don't assume that Canada Free Press agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege. |
|
