Are Republicans still in favor of the "Unitary Executive" theory?

blahblahblah.
When caught saying something untrue, acknowledge you screwed up and get on with it. Don't try to excuplate yourself. You end up looking dishonest, which you are.
Republicans SPONSORED the legislation. The law was thrown out as unconstitutional.
Those two facts make your entire post simply wrong on fact. Trying to find some way to weasel out of it makes you look stupid.
 
blahblahblah.
When caught saying something untrue, acknowledge you screwed up and get on with it. Don't try to excuplate yourself. You end up looking dishonest, which you are.
Republicans SPONSORED the legislation. The law was thrown out as unconstitutional.
Those two facts make your entire post simply wrong on fact. Trying to find some way to weasel out of it makes you look stupid.

Nah when I am wrong I admit it.

I was wrong.

Personally I do not agree with the ruling.

I could have sworn it ended up not passing do to lack of support. My bad.

Chalk it up to senility.

It is actually rather astounding they passed it when a Dem was president. Good for them. To bad about the court ruling.
 
OK we agree. That's settled. Yes, the line item veto is a good idea because COngress can't control itself. One of Bush's biggest errors was not vetoing more spending bills.
 
Although what should we expect from you? You never did finish the quote.

Are you proudly proclaiming that you are unaware of the fact that the part that I quoted is emphasized by the second clause???

Dummy, the Constitution with a capital 'C' is not the same as 'constitutions', lower-case 'c.'

Time for you to apologize?


:lol:

Now you're denying what you meant and repeatedly said throughout the thread?

At least it's a change; you've been hiding for the last six months.
 
"In favor of it or not" is a stupid question.

The Executive Branch IS unitary. You may dislike it. You may like it. But it is what it is.

The Legislative Branch does not execute the laws it passes.

The Judicial Branch doesn't either.

The Executive Branch does.
 
"In favor of it or not" is a stupid question.

The Executive Branch IS unitary. You may dislike it. You may like it. But it is what it is.

The Legislative Branch does not execute the laws it passes.

The Judicial Branch doesn't either.

The Executive Branch does.

Sooo that means you are in favor? Its just your opinion, there is no right or wrong answer
 
I never liked this idea and was mad as hell when I heard this "theory". I dont believe any president should circumvent laws by putting his own spin on it. I thought Obama would do the same but so far he hasnt...and I'm wondering why?
it isn't a theory, it is a trend, and Obama HAS done the same!

List of President Obama's Signing Statements -

We tried to tell you all that it was a bad idea when Dubya went crazy with them. Now do you understand?

I knew it from it's first mention. Shades of Nixon, but without the upsides.
 
uh, yes it is remotely the same thing. There is no purpose for signing statements except to assert a presidential rendition of what the new means, and how the executive will adhere to it. It is preemptive legal cover for breaking the new law at will.

if that is what Obama did I don't agree with it. Do you agree with signing statements when the purpose is to side step the law?

are you nutz? Of course not!
 
"In favor of it or not" is a stupid question.

The Executive Branch IS unitary. You may dislike it. You may like it. But it is what it is.

The Legislative Branch does not execute the laws it passes.

The Judicial Branch doesn't either.

The Executive Branch does.

Sooo that means you are in favor? Its just your opinion, there is no right or wrong answer

He;'s probably in favor of a bicameral legislature as well. It might be just my opinion, but I also favor it.

What a fucktard you are.
 
"In favor of it or not" is a stupid question.

The Executive Branch IS unitary. You may dislike it. You may like it. But it is what it is.

The Legislative Branch does not execute the laws it passes.

The Judicial Branch doesn't either.

The Executive Branch does.

Sooo that means you are in favor? Its just your opinion, there is no right or wrong answer


Sooo it means the question is meaningless, as I said.

It is what it is.

The Executive is unitary. So is the Judicial Branch, by the way. So is the Legislative Branch.

And that's not an "opinion." It is what it is, and what it is is fact.
 
The Line Item Veto is an unconstitutional shift of power from Congress to the President

A) No it isn't.
B) Actually the GOP pushed for it when Clinton was in office. So claiming they change their views based on who is the president is demonstrably wrong.
C) You are a fucktard.

A- is correct it is not unconstitutional, and I believe if the question went to the courts they would agree.

It is completely unconstitutional and if the court doesn't uphold that we might as well burn the republic and start over.
 
A) No it isn't.
B) Actually the GOP pushed for it when Clinton was in office. So claiming they change their views based on who is the president is demonstrably wrong.
C) You are a fucktard.

B-is not true man. Clinton wanted a line Item Veto and the Republicans would not give it to him. Both Parties want it, when they have the WH, and do not want it when they control congress,

.

You are a nitwit if that is the best you can do.
Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.

And if you read on.. "Judge Thomas Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia combined the cases and declared the law unconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. Justices Breyer, Scalia, and O'Connor dissented."

Clinton v. City of New York, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument ...

Youre a fucking idiot for not reading all of what you posted. Now tell rightwinger he is right, youre wrong, and admit your an idiot, purposefully dishonest, or lack reading comprehension skills.
 
blahblahblah.
When caught saying something untrue, acknowledge you screwed up and get on with it. Don't try to excuplate yourself. You end up looking dishonest, which you are.
Republicans SPONSORED the legislation. The law was thrown out as unconstitutional.
Those two facts make your entire post simply wrong on fact. Trying to find some way to weasel out of it makes you look stupid.

you are senile aren't you? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you can't connect the dots, follow a conversation or navigate these board discussions without constantly shoving all four of your feet in your mouth, at once.

You probably should just recognize your age induced limitations and suspend your hostility, and insane sense of certainty.

Or we will all be forced to scroll by or just laugh at you.
 
"In favor of it or not" is a stupid question.

The Executive Branch IS unitary. You may dislike it. You may like it. But it is what it is.

The Legislative Branch does not execute the laws it passes.

The Judicial Branch doesn't either.

The Executive Branch does.

fascinating medieval thinking.
 
"In favor of it or not" is a stupid question.

The Executive Branch IS unitary. You may dislike it. You may like it. But it is what it is.

The Legislative Branch does not execute the laws it passes.

The Judicial Branch doesn't either.

The Executive Branch does.

fascinating medieval thinking.

There is nothing medieval about the correct interpretation of our Constitutional Republic's rather clear formulation, you blathering dolt.
 
"In favor of it or not" is a stupid question.

The Executive Branch IS unitary. You may dislike it. You may like it. But it is what it is.

The Legislative Branch does not execute the laws it passes.

The Judicial Branch doesn't either.

The Executive Branch does.

Sooo that means you are in favor? Its just your opinion, there is no right or wrong answer


Sooo it means the question is meaningless, as I said.

It is what it is.

The Executive is unitary. So is the Judicial Branch, by the way. So is the Legislative Branch.

And that's not an "opinion." It is what it is, and what it is is fact.

excuse me, but the legislative branch is the exact opposite of unitary.

Do you know what unitary means as a legal term?

And your summary glosses over the implied meaning of Unitary exec. The implication is that of an executive who is above the checks and balances of the other two branches.
 
Sooo that means you are in favor? Its just your opinion, there is no right or wrong answer


Sooo it means the question is meaningless, as I said.

It is what it is.

The Executive is unitary. So is the Judicial Branch, by the way. So is the Legislative Branch.

And that's not an "opinion." It is what it is, and what it is is fact.

excuse me, but the legislative branch is the exact opposite of unitary.

Do you know what unitary means as a legal term?

And your summary glosses over the implied meaning of Unitary exec. The implication is that of an executive who is above the checks and balances of the other two branches.

Entirely wrong. Your ignorance is astounding.

The Legislative branch IS unitary since it does not require (except for the final approval of a bill or its veto) any input from either of the other two branches to do its thing. That its set-up is bicameral doesn't make it any less unitary.

Your fantasy "implied" meaning of a "unitary executive" is not what you stupidly imagine an actual unitary executive to be.

The ACTUAL meaning is sufficient. And its actual meaning is that the executive branch is empowered to execute the laws pursuant to the terms and under the conditions established by the Constitution, and its ability to do that is not dependent on input from the Legislative Branch. For example (one of millions): the Executive is the Commander in Chief. When Congress authorizes military action, the President doesn't have to have an oversight committee from Congress micromanage where troops will be deployed.

None of this means ANY branch is above checks and balances. What it does mean is that doing its job is the province of each branch.

If you are attempting to grunt out that there are SOME overlaps within our Constitutional framework -- by design -- that much is true. But, it doesn't change the analysis. Your spin is bogus.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top