What's new
By:

Donald is about to go through some things...

SteakNEggs said:
Lol I find it funny you used some wierd 1875 stat you just pulled out of your butt but you refused to follow the actual clause that's in place. You wouldn't even acknowledge it. It's a very simple constitutional clause. It's pretty damn straightforward.

The Appointments Clause says, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Click to expand...
You should probably quote the entire thing. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

I won't rehash all the acts over this. Do you still want to spout your ********?
 
TheStormofWar said:
You should probably quote the entire thing. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

I won't rehash all the acts over this. Do you still want to spout your ********?
Click to expand...
So you need congress approval... You dummy... Do you not understand that is literally saying THE COGRESS BY LAW VEST THE APPOINTMENT.

What do you suppose that means lololool? You're literally proving my point for me that it still has to be vested by Cogress. A president simply cannot have his AG hire some guy off the street to arrest a former president. It has to be approved by the Senate. Our education system is destroyed man. People can't even grasp a very simple constitutional clause.
 
SteakNEggs said:
So you need congress approval... You dummy... Do you not understand that is literally saying THE COGRESS BY LAW VEST THE APPOINTMENT.
Click to expand...
I feel you like you are very, very close to making a breakthrough here. Now, please look up the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as it relates the appointment of Special Prosecutors/Independent Counsels. Also, you should probably look up what the word "vest" means in this circumstance.
 
Last edited:
TheStormofWar said:
I feel you like you are very, very close to making a breakthrough here. Now, please look up the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as it relates the appointment of Special Prosecutors/Independent Counsels. Also, you should probably probably look up what the worst "vest" means in this circumstance.
Click to expand...
No thanks. As I said, as a person that actually debates unlike the bully cult here that like post about killing presidents like Log and fish and str8line did while saying they are good people, it's not my job to make your argument. It's obviously clear that in order for a Presidents office to anoint a prosecutor to arrest a political opponent that you need the senate. It's clearly stated in the clause. And to vest means you still need Congress involvement. The congress must VEST THE APPOINTMENT. They never vested this. They never had the chance. Do you really not understand this?

And notice how though we are going down each others throats I am backing myself up. SOmething @LogGrad98 the bully has NEVER done? Ever... Not once... Not even a single alphabet letter in a debate... He just bullies nothing more.
 
SteakNEggs said:
No thanks. As I said, as a person that actually debates unlike the bully cult here that like post about killing presidents like Log and fish and str8line did while saying they are good people, it's not my job to make your argument. It's obviously clear that in order for a Presidents office to anoint a prosecutor to arrest a political opponent that you need the senate. It's clearly stated in the clause. And to vest means you still need Congress involvement. The congress must VEST THE APPOINTMENT. They never vested this. They never had the chance.
Click to expand...
Oh ********.

Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Click to expand...
Vest means, in this case, to confer power or authority in someone, which they did pretty clearly with the law in '78, as well as some subsequent laws. So are you contending that the an Independent Counsel is not an Inferior Officer?
 
TheStormofWar said:
Oh ********.


Vest means, in this case, to confer power or authority in someone, which they did pretty clearly with the law in '78, as well as some subsequent laws. So are you contending that the an Independent Counsel is not an Inferior Office?
Click to expand...
THEY...DIDN'T..."CONFER....THE....POWER..." Though you dummy. The power is still in the senate. Again how do you not understand this? Presidents can't just arrest other presidents on their own power.
 
str8line said:
The Rapist is salivating. He can't believe his good fortune. He gets to play victim of an assassination attemp while merely scraping the not-so-manly orange skin of his grotesque ear. It was to be a death penalty deserved for Jan. 6 anyways, but Teflon Don somehow escaped liability again. The compounding effects of his good fortune include scuttled Biden replacement talk and perfect timing for his little helper Miss Cannon to make her big move.
Click to expand...
Didn't you like a post where CY was angry that the assassin missed? Can you explain your thought behind that?
 
SteakNEggs said:
Just throwing random Acts out is not making your point. Congress never vested their authority here.
Click to expand...
Prove me wrong then. The Ethics in Government Act in 1978 did what exactly in regard to the AG and his appointment of Special Prosecutors/Independent Counsels, because it seems pretty explicit they did vest that authority.
 
TheStormofWar said:
Prove me wrong then. The Ethics in Government Act in 1978 did what exactly in regard to the AG and his appointment of Special Prosecutors/Independent Counsels, because it seems pretty explicit they did vest that authority.
Click to expand...
No... It's not my job to do yours. This is how people around here put the onus on me. They are too stupid to explain it themselves and force me to make their argument for them. Be an adult. You back up your claim. Unlike you I proved actual evidence that clearly states it must be approved by the senate.
 
SteakNEggs said:
No... It's not my job to do yours. This is how people around here put the onus on me. They are too stupid to explain it themselves and force me to make their argument for them. Be an adult. You back up your claim.
Click to expand...
Congrats, you are now a meme.
553.jpg
 
SteakNEggs said:
No... This is a tactic the less educated use to just throw out a link after they blatantly lie, to put the the onus on me. If you want to make an argument, man up. Make it.
Click to expand...
I did. I gave you the exact law, legal meaning, Constitutional justification, SCOTUS cases, etc. And yet you are the one refusing to read homie. So congrats, you played yourself. You are now a meme, nothing more.
 
TheStormofWar said:
I'm not a Democrat.
Click to expand...
Alt-Lefties all say that. It's tiresome.

But I'm over politics for a minute. I'm going to go celebrate Americas victory from the fascist that are angry they can't supercede Congress to arrest political opponents. True dictators. All left as they come. Alt Alt left maybe even.

For the record, if Trump wins I hope he focuses on fixing the mess you alt left created. I'm out though. Sorry you can arrest political opponents without Senate... What a concept lol. Little fascist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top