KING Biden

[TNHarley]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Agree. We need to add some teeth to the constitution to get rid of the EO's, War Powers Act, the party leaders shutting down any votes or floor debates. I remember you were against them under Trump too...unlike a lot of your fellow conservatives. Nice consistency.

No teeth are needed. The Constitution is clear.

It is? Cool..what part covers Executive Orders and the War Powers Act?

It doesnt. Thats the point.

Correct.

So where in the Constitution is the penalty for doing unconstitutional acts either by the White House or by Congress who is complicit in letting the chief executive do whatever he wants to do?

They break their oaths
Fourteenth Amendment

• Section 3
  No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Had to see where executive orders fall under "insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".

When congress or the president do unconstitutional actions, they break their oath. That would be rebellion.

That is your interpretation..."rebellion"

Please show me a definition of rebellion that includes breaking an oath.

the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Which order is most egregious in your opinion?

All of them. He has both houses. If he wants shit enacted make it a law through the proper channels. This stupid shit is just going to get worse with every presidency. Each new one takes more and more power for themselves. How long before we look like the nation we fled?

Executive Orders should only be allowed as they pertain to people directly under the purview of the Presidency, aka his direct employees.

 

[colfax_m]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Which order is most egregious in your opinion?

All of them. He has both houses. If he wants shit enacted make it a law through the proper channels. This stupid shit is just going to get worse with every presidency. Each new one takes more and more power for themselves. How long before we look like the nation we fled?

Executive Orders should only be allowed as they pertain to people directly under the purview of the Presidency, aka his direct employees.

Which one of his orders doesn’t pertain to people directly under his purview?

If you say all of them, you’d be wrong.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

In fairness, most of them are just undoing trump EOs

He too abused the pen.

 

[Auld Phart]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Which order is most egregious in your opinion?

All of them. He has both houses. If he wants shit enacted make it a law through the proper channels. This stupid shit is just going to get worse with every presidency. Each new one takes more and more power for themselves. How long before we look like the nation we fled?

Executive Orders should only be allowed as they pertain to people directly under the purview of the Presidency, aka his direct employees.

Which one of his orders doesn’t pertain to people directly under his purview?

If you say all of them, you’d be wrong.

Which one of his orders doesn’t pertain to people directly under his purview?

athletic transvestites stealing spots on school teams are directly under his purview?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Which order is most egregious in your opinion?

All of them. He has both houses. If he wants shit enacted make it a law through the proper channels. This stupid shit is just going to get worse with every presidency. Each new one takes more and more power for themselves. How long before we look like the nation we fled?

Executive Orders should only be allowed as they pertain to people directly under the purview of the Presidency, aka his direct employees.

Which one of his orders doesn’t pertain to people directly under his purview?

If you say all of them, you’d be wrong.

Why are you insisting on playing this game?

Title 9
Keystone
Paris climate

There's three now go find a way to twist shit up as I know you will. Either way I am not playing your game.

 

[candycorn]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Agree. We need to add some teeth to the constitution to get rid of the EO's, War Powers Act, the party leaders shutting down any votes or floor debates. I remember you were against them under Trump too...unlike a lot of your fellow conservatives. Nice consistency.

No teeth are needed. The Constitution is clear.

It is? Cool..what part covers Executive Orders and the War Powers Act?

It doesnt. Thats the point.

Correct.

So where in the Constitution is the penalty for doing unconstitutional acts either by the White House or by Congress who is complicit in letting the chief executive do whatever he wants to do?

They break their oaths
Fourteenth Amendment

• Section 3
  No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Had to see where executive orders fall under "insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".

When congress or the president do unconstitutional actions, they break their oath. That would be rebellion.

That is your interpretation..."rebellion"

Please show me a definition of rebellion that includes breaking an oath.

the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.

Nothing in there about an oath violation being termed a "rebellion".

 

[night_son]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

The fun has just begun. Biden's chain of middle class crushing Executive Orders will be followed closely by a dictatorship of the radical leftist Congress resulting in execution of the filibuster, statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, and packing of the Supreme Court. Fuel and food prices will continue to rise. A domestic terrorism agency will come into being tasked solely with hunting down and persecuting conservative Christian Americans. Big Tech companies will continue to strangle conservative free speech and Critical Race Theory will become America's new religion. The time to "curb" this shit was before Biden stepped into the Oval Office.

 

[night_son]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Which order is most egregious in your opinion?

All of them. He has both houses. If he wants shit enacted make it a law through the proper channels. This stupid shit is just going to get worse with every presidency. Each new one takes more and more power for themselves. How long before we look like the nation we fled?

Executive Orders should only be allowed as they pertain to people directly under the purview of the Presidency, aka his direct employees.

Which one of his orders doesn’t pertain to people directly under his purview?

If you say all of them, you’d be wrong.

Which one of his orders doesn’t pertain to people directly under his purview?

athletic transvestites stealing spots on school teams are directly under his purview?

The modern American political Left despises the female form. For decades they pretended to be champions of women's rights. Now they've bared their true feelings about women. The modern Left hates women; they hate our mothers, new mothers, our daughters, our nieces, our newborn daughters—all women, according to radical leftist ideology, must be desecrated in some way.

 

[TNHarley]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Agree. We need to add some teeth to the constitution to get rid of the EO's, War Powers Act, the party leaders shutting down any votes or floor debates. I remember you were against them under Trump too...unlike a lot of your fellow conservatives. Nice consistency.

No teeth are needed. The Constitution is clear.

It is? Cool..what part covers Executive Orders and the War Powers Act?

It doesnt. Thats the point.

Correct.

So where in the Constitution is the penalty for doing unconstitutional acts either by the White House or by Congress who is complicit in letting the chief executive do whatever he wants to do?

They break their oaths
Fourteenth Amendment

• Section 3
  No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Had to see where executive orders fall under "insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".

When congress or the president do unconstitutional actions, they break their oath. That would be rebellion.

That is your interpretation..."rebellion"

Please show me a definition of rebellion that includes breaking an oath.

the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.

Nothing in there about an oath violation being termed a "rebellion".

The Constitution is their authority and control.
This is a law
5 U.S.C. 7311 (foavc.org)
Advocate in this text means “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.”
It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other than by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

 

[candycorn]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Agree. We need to add some teeth to the constitution to get rid of the EO's, War Powers Act, the party leaders shutting down any votes or floor debates. I remember you were against them under Trump too...unlike a lot of your fellow conservatives. Nice consistency.

No teeth are needed. The Constitution is clear.

It is? Cool..what part covers Executive Orders and the War Powers Act?

It doesnt. Thats the point.

Correct.

So where in the Constitution is the penalty for doing unconstitutional acts either by the White House or by Congress who is complicit in letting the chief executive do whatever he wants to do?

They break their oaths
Fourteenth Amendment

• Section 3
  No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Had to see where executive orders fall under "insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".

When congress or the president do unconstitutional actions, they break their oath. That would be rebellion.

That is your interpretation..."rebellion"

Please show me a definition of rebellion that includes breaking an oath.

the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.

Nothing in there about an oath violation being termed a "rebellion".

The Constitution is their authority and control.
This is a law
5 U.S.C. 7311 (foavc.org)
Advocate in this text means “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.”
It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other than by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

Okay....when can we expect the arrests?

 

[TNHarley]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Agree. We need to add some teeth to the constitution to get rid of the EO's, War Powers Act, the party leaders shutting down any votes or floor debates. I remember you were against them under Trump too...unlike a lot of your fellow conservatives. Nice consistency.

No teeth are needed. The Constitution is clear.

It is? Cool..what part covers Executive Orders and the War Powers Act?

It doesnt. Thats the point.

Correct.

So where in the Constitution is the penalty for doing unconstitutional acts either by the White House or by Congress who is complicit in letting the chief executive do whatever he wants to do?

They break their oaths
Fourteenth Amendment

• Section 3
  No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Had to see where executive orders fall under "insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".

When congress or the president do unconstitutional actions, they break their oath. That would be rebellion.

That is your interpretation..."rebellion"

Please show me a definition of rebellion that includes breaking an oath.

the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.

Nothing in there about an oath violation being termed a "rebellion".

The Constitution is their authority and control.
This is a law
5 U.S.C. 7311 (foavc.org)
Advocate in this text means “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.”
It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other than by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

Okay....when can we expect the arrests?

About the time we get term limits. I mean, who wouldnt get arrested? Justin Amish? lol

 

[Missourian]

I am not blinded by myopic thoughts for party affiliation

​

^^^^Lack of self awareness post of the day...

 

[candycorn]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Agree. We need to add some teeth to the constitution to get rid of the EO's, War Powers Act, the party leaders shutting down any votes or floor debates. I remember you were against them under Trump too...unlike a lot of your fellow conservatives. Nice consistency.

No teeth are needed. The Constitution is clear.

It is? Cool..what part covers Executive Orders and the War Powers Act?

It doesnt. Thats the point.

Correct.

So where in the Constitution is the penalty for doing unconstitutional acts either by the White House or by Congress who is complicit in letting the chief executive do whatever he wants to do?

They break their oaths
Fourteenth Amendment

• Section 3
  No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Had to see where executive orders fall under "insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".

When congress or the president do unconstitutional actions, they break their oath. That would be rebellion.

That is your interpretation..."rebellion"

Please show me a definition of rebellion that includes breaking an oath.

the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.

Nothing in there about an oath violation being termed a "rebellion".

The Constitution is their authority and control.
This is a law
5 U.S.C. 7311 (foavc.org)
Advocate in this text means “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.”
It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other than by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

Okay....when can we expect the arrests?

About the time we get term limits. I mean, who wouldnt get arrested? Justin Amish? lol

Everyone of them would get a arrested...and then every one of their replacements would get arrested....and everyone of their replacements would too if we make violating an oath of office grounds for removal for office. “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The next thing you know when you give an interview on CNN...you're supporting "enemies".....boom removal!
Dis-allegiance....that will be a daily occurrence if you have a punitive majority.

Which is why I mentioned the WPA and the Executive orders by the President. I don't know where the EO's come from in the Constitution. I sort of get the WPA....commander in chief and all. But the EO's?

 

[Bobob]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

What has to be curbed is the shit that Trump pulled for four uears.

 

[TNHarley]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Agree. We need to add some teeth to the constitution to get rid of the EO's, War Powers Act, the party leaders shutting down any votes or floor debates. I remember you were against them under Trump too...unlike a lot of your fellow conservatives. Nice consistency.

No teeth are needed. The Constitution is clear.

It is? Cool..what part covers Executive Orders and the War Powers Act?

It doesnt. Thats the point.

Correct.

So where in the Constitution is the penalty for doing unconstitutional acts either by the White House or by Congress who is complicit in letting the chief executive do whatever he wants to do?

They break their oaths
Fourteenth Amendment

• Section 3
  No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Had to see where executive orders fall under "insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".

When congress or the president do unconstitutional actions, they break their oath. That would be rebellion.

That is your interpretation..."rebellion"

Please show me a definition of rebellion that includes breaking an oath.

the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.

Nothing in there about an oath violation being termed a "rebellion".

The Constitution is their authority and control.
This is a law
5 U.S.C. 7311 (foavc.org)
Advocate in this text means “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.”
It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other than by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

Okay....when can we expect the arrests?

About the time we get term limits. I mean, who wouldnt get arrested? Justin Amish? lol

Everyone of them would get a arrested...and then every one of their replacements would get arrested....and everyone of their replacements would too if we make violating an oath of office grounds for removal for office. “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The next thing you know when you give an interview on CNN...you're supporting "enemies".....boom removal!
Dis-allegiance....that will be a daily occurrence if you have a punitive majority.

Which is why I mentioned the WPA and the Executive orders by the President. I don't know where the EO's come from in the Constitution. I sort of get the WPA....commander in chief and all. But the EO's?

Dont pass and support unconstitutional legislation and actions. It wouldnt be that hard. Maybe you are more cynical than i am. If thats even possible..
WPA is unconstitutional because of this :
The Congress shall have Power to To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
And this :
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.
EOs themselves are not unconstitutional. Its when they are abused beyond directing federal agencies on certain things. As long as they are within the executives constitutional powers, of course.

 

[BS Filter]

These are the commie assholes who cried that President Trump was a dictator. Unbelievable hypocrisy.

 

[BS Filter]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

What has to be curbed is the shit that Trump pulled for four uears.

Yeah, we can't have record unemployment and $2/gallon gasoline and low taxes. That's deplorable.

 

[CowboyTed]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Why?

You had no problem when Trump had the highest EO per year since Carter.... He was 50% higher than Obama...

Biden is President and he can have Executive Orders, deal with it... Most of his EOs are to reverse Trump's EOs....

Any way Trump proved to us there is no consequences of breaking rules (which Biden isn't ) while in office...

Sorry but the GOP lost its bi-partisan creds when they put Marjorie Taylor Greene on the Education Committee.... Thanks for giving permission to play hardball..

 

[TNHarley]

30+ executive orders in just over a week.

What the hell. Why even bother with a legislative branch?

This shit has to be curbed wouldn't you agree?

Why?

You had no problem when Trump had the highest EO per year since Carter.... He was 50% higher than Obama...

Biden is President and he can have Executive Orders, deal with it... Most of his EOs are to reverse Trump's EOs....

Any way Trump proved to us there is no consequences of breaking rules (which Biden isn't ) while in office...

Sorry but the GOP lost its bi-partisan creds when they put Marjorie Taylor Greene on the Education Committee.... Thanks for giving permission to play hardball..

Actually he did. Binary thinking dont cut it around here, son.