I would say it's the other way around. The GQ swamp dwellers have normalized trump's behavior because they've been saying the quiet part out loud for a long time, starting with Alito arguing in favor for a unitary presidency.
I would say it's the other way around. The GQ swamp dwellers have normalized trump's behavior because they've been saying the quiet part out loud for a long time, starting with Alito arguing in favor for a unitary presidency.
I'm surprised this story starts in 1986 and not 1973. Wasn't it Nixon who said in effect, it's legal if the president does it, and tried "recission," where he refused to spend money appropriated by Congress, ie. to enforce/execute the laws of the United States?
The unitary executive theory is complete and utter bullsh*t. The founders WANTED a secular country, where religion didn't dominate the government, which got people killed. They wanted an executive, whose powers had checks and balances. A number of the founders were Deists, who believed in the existence of a faraway God. God created the universe and left humans to their own devices. Leave it to Samuel Alito to make up things like signing statements, which basically said, "I don't agree with this law, so I am not going to enforce it." If you look at the words of the presidential oath of office, signing statements are a dereliction of duty. The Republicans lie to grab power and money for themselves.
And we were damned lucky that, after the war, Washington refused to BE a king! Some urged it on him, and he said тАЬNO.тАЭ As we had a weak federation at first тАж and framers continued to work on creating a strong and durable government, with a functional and enduring {amendable!} Constitution тАж Washington not only refused to be king, but he chose to LEAVE office and allow for continuing electionsтАж. We could have had something more like Napoleon, but we got Washington. Damned lucky.
No guarantees weтАЩd be so lucky againтАж. Right now, we SEE some who want to re-instate a тАЬKingтАЭ by a different name {a тАЬunitary presidentтАЭ who has тАЬfull immunity while in officeтАЭ}.
Yes, exactly! Any other interpretation of the Founders intentions when writing the Constitution & creating this country is bogus!! I'm glad to hear that at least George Stepanopoulous is finally recognizing that, and what is at stake if the Press doesn't protect our democriacy.
This "interpretation" of our constitution is akin to "interpreting" orange as green. This christofascist white nationalist etc., "interpretation" is just out and out b.s.
Yes, and those damned тАЬsigning statementsтАЭ тАФ- But people donтАЩt have a clue what a тАЬunitary presidentтАЭ is. TheyтАЩve taken a debating society skill and applied it to their political discourse тАФ Whatever side you need to be on, find an тАЬargumentтАЭ that fits and stick to it, whether it bears close scrutiny, whether it holds up, or NOT.
Their тАЬChristian Country,тАЭ BarrтАЩs rewritten history about colonists rebelling against Parliament, the тАЬunitary presidentтАЭ NOT being answerable to checks-and-balances тАж. All the real тАЬbullsh*tтАЭ in this equation.
Barr has been a liar and a monster for a loooooong time.
[As a aside тАФ people like Barr and Trump and Bannon show the effects of their venality on their faces. They are seriously scary looking people. IтАЩm at a loss as to why anyone can consider them respectable.]
I would say it's the other way around. The GQ swamp dwellers have normalized trump's behavior because they've been saying the quiet part out loud for a long time, starting with Alito arguing in favor for a unitary presidency.
I'm surprised this story starts in 1986 and not 1973. Wasn't it Nixon who said in effect, it's legal if the president does it, and tried "recission," where he refused to spend money appropriated by Congress, ie. to enforce/execute the laws of the United States?
The unitary executive theory is complete and utter bullsh*t. The founders WANTED a secular country, where religion didn't dominate the government, which got people killed. They wanted an executive, whose powers had checks and balances. A number of the founders were Deists, who believed in the existence of a faraway God. God created the universe and left humans to their own devices. Leave it to Samuel Alito to make up things like signing statements, which basically said, "I don't agree with this law, so I am not going to enforce it." If you look at the words of the presidential oath of office, signing statements are a dereliction of duty. The Republicans lie to grab power and money for themselves.
That's why they wanted to have a President and not a King.
And we were damned lucky that, after the war, Washington refused to BE a king! Some urged it on him, and he said тАЬNO.тАЭ As we had a weak federation at first тАж and framers continued to work on creating a strong and durable government, with a functional and enduring {amendable!} Constitution тАж Washington not only refused to be king, but he chose to LEAVE office and allow for continuing electionsтАж. We could have had something more like Napoleon, but we got Washington. Damned lucky.
No guarantees weтАЩd be so lucky againтАж. Right now, we SEE some who want to re-instate a тАЬKingтАЭ by a different name {a тАЬunitary presidentтАЭ who has тАЬfull immunity while in officeтАЭ}.
Elect Democrats who support Democracy!
Reject the Right Wing Theocratic Aristocrats!
Vote Blue, Through and Through!
Yes, exactly! Any other interpretation of the Founders intentions when writing the Constitution & creating this country is bogus!! I'm glad to hear that at least George Stepanopoulous is finally recognizing that, and what is at stake if the Press doesn't protect our democriacy.
This "interpretation" of our constitution is akin to "interpreting" orange as green. This christofascist white nationalist etc., "interpretation" is just out and out b.s.
Absolutely!! There was never any intention of this country being any sort of theocracy, either. Any claim of that is also bogus!!
Yep--right on the money Suzanne.
Yes, and those damned тАЬsigning statementsтАЭ тАФ- But people donтАЩt have a clue what a тАЬunitary presidentтАЭ is. TheyтАЩve taken a debating society skill and applied it to their political discourse тАФ Whatever side you need to be on, find an тАЬargumentтАЭ that fits and stick to it, whether it bears close scrutiny, whether it holds up, or NOT.
Their тАЬChristian Country,тАЭ BarrтАЩs rewritten history about colonists rebelling against Parliament, the тАЬunitary presidentтАЭ NOT being answerable to checks-and-balances тАж. All the real тАЬbullsh*tтАЭ in this equation.
Barr has been a liar and a monster for a loooooong time.
[As a aside тАФ people like Barr and Trump and Bannon show the effects of their venality on their faces. They are seriously scary looking people. IтАЩm at a loss as to why anyone can consider them respectable.]
TheyтАЩve been saying it, but people have not recognized the meaning тАж We do now!!