Most Important Take Away on Trump's Response to Bannon's Book

[radical right]

While they cooperate the Marines have their own chain of command and seat on the joint chiefs. A little know fact is the Army has more aircraft than the AF and more boats than the Navy.
.

 

[radical right]

It doesn't say anything about the Marines either yet they have existed as long as the country has.


.

The marines are a division of the US Navy. Which the constitution makes the president c-in-c over.

After the army air corps was disolved, it was no longer under a military branch the constitution gave the president control over. Except by interpretation by 9 lawyers.

And an act of congress.


.

Congress doesn't have the power to add the air force to the c-in-c, except by constitutional interpretation.

 

[OKTexas]

It doesn't say anything about the Marines either yet they have existed as long as the country has.


.

The marines are a division of the US Navy. Which the constitution makes the president c-in-c over.

After the army air corps was disolved, it was no longer under a military branch the constitution gave the president control over. Except by interpretation by 9 lawyers.

And an act of congress.


.

Congress doesn't have the power to add the air force to the c-in-c, except by constitutional interpretation.

Well feel free to tell Trump he doesn't have the authority to tell the AF what to do. When it comes to constitutional violations this one has to be the least offensive I could possibly think of.

Still waiting on that constitutional citation on spending bills.


.

 

[radical right]

Well feel free to tell Trump he doesn't have the authority to tell the AF what to do. When it comes to constitutional violations this one has to be the least offensive I could possibly think of.

Still waiting on that constitutional citation on spending bills.


.

You're arguing if it's not implicitly in the constitution it's un-constitutional.

I'm a living constitution interpretation believer. So I have no problem with the USSC interpreting the constitution, and that the air force is considered an addition to the commander in chiefs authority. And that Congress has an article I power to make it so.

 

[Thinker101]

Well feel free to tell Trump he doesn't have the authority to tell the AF what to do. When it comes to constitutional violations this one has to be the least offensive I could possibly think of.

Still waiting on that constitutional citation on spending bills.


.

You're arguing if it's not implicitly in the constitution it's un-constitutional.

I'm a living constitution interpretation believer. So I have no problem with the USSC interpreting the constitution, and that the air force is considered an addition to the commander in chiefs authority. And that Congress has an article I power to make it so.

Living constitution interpretation believer?? WTF, who gets to interpret?

 

[radical right]

Living constitution interpretation believer?? WTF, who gets to interpret?

Originally John Marshall et. al.

 

[Thinker101]

Living constitution interpretation believer?? WTF, who gets to interpret?

Originally John Marshall et. al.

Soooo, now that he's gone who gets to interpret?

 

[jillian]

Trump accused Bannon of being the White House leak! So Bannon accused Kushner and Ivanka of being the leaks from the White House, undermining the POTUS, and now Trump is accusing Bannon. The White House is now officially full of a bunch of pre-school children.

"“Steve pretends to be at war with the media, which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was,” the president continued. “It is the only thing he does well. Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books.”"

Trump turns on Bannon: 'He lost his mind'

The big takeaway is that the orange loon didn't deny bannon's statements were true. He only whines like a stuck pig about bannon having told what went on.

 

[jillian]

Well feel free to tell Trump he doesn't have the authority to tell the AF what to do. When it comes to constitutional violations this one has to be the least offensive I could possibly think of.

Still waiting on that constitutional citation on spending bills.


.

You're arguing if it's not implicitly in the constitution it's un-constitutional.

I'm a living constitution interpretation believer. So I have no problem with the USSC interpreting the constitution, and that the air force is considered an addition to the commander in chiefs authority. And that Congress has an article I power to make it so.

Living constitution interpretation believer?? WTF, who gets to interpret?

Once again, you need a new nic since you don't think at all.

Our constitution set up a system based on England's common law system. Before you ask stupid questions, you should probably find out what that is.

As to interpreting the constitution that is how our system was designed. To understand that, you should probably read the case Marburg v Madison if you're capable.

There is a reason that brown v bf of Ed was able to overturn Plessy v ferguson.

But please pretend all of this isn't over your head.

 

[OKTexas]

Well feel free to tell Trump he doesn't have the authority to tell the AF what to do. When it comes to constitutional violations this one has to be the least offensive I could possibly think of.

Still waiting on that constitutional citation on spending bills.


.

You're arguing if it's not implicitly in the constitution it's un-constitutional.

I'm a living constitution interpretation believer. So I have no problem with the USSC interpreting the constitution, and that the air force is considered an addition to the commander in chiefs authority. And that Congress has an article I power to make it so.

What about this sentence did you fail to understand?

When it comes to constitutional violations this one has to be the least offensive I could possibly think of.

And no you're not a living constitution believer, you're a believer that the government can do anything they please and you have no problem with the courts and the States allowing them to get away with it.


.

 

[radical right]

Living constitution interpretation believer?? WTF, who gets to interpret?

Originally John Marshall et. al.

Soooo, now that he's gone who gets to interpret?

John Roberts et. al.

 

[radical right]

What about this sentence did you fail to understand?
.

When it comes to constitutional violations this one has to be the least offensive I could possibly think of.

It's either constitutional or un-constitutional. Kinda like being a little bit pregnant. If you want to use shades of grey over constitutionality you're falling into a rabbit hole.

 

[Lakhota]

Most Important Take Away on Trump's Response to Bannon's Book

It's not Bannon's book. It's Michael Wolff's book. Bannon has just been quoting excerpts from it.

 

[OKTexas]

Well feel free to tell Trump he doesn't have the authority to tell the AF what to do. When it comes to constitutional violations this one has to be the least offensive I could possibly think of.

Still waiting on that constitutional citation on spending bills.


.

You're arguing if it's not implicitly in the constitution it's un-constitutional.

I'm a living constitution interpretation believer. So I have no problem with the USSC interpreting the constitution, and that the air force is considered an addition to the commander in chiefs authority. And that Congress has an article I power to make it so.

Living constitution interpretation believer?? WTF, who gets to interpret?

Once again, you need a new nic since you don't think at all.

Our constitution set up a system based on England's common law system. Before you ask stupid questions, you should probably find out what that is.

As to interpreting the constitution that is how our system was designed. To understand that, you should probably read the case Marburg v Madison if you're capable.

There is a reason that brown v bf of Ed was able to overturn Plessy v ferguson.

But please pretend all of this isn't over your head.

There is a reason that brown v bf of Ed was able to overturn Plessy v ferguson.

Which only proves that one decision is only as good as the next decision that vacates it. Meaning the constitution and law are not the final basis for a decision, if they were all decisions would be linear and no decision would need to vacated. The court is just a bunch of lawyers with differing opinions, not gods.


.

 

[Lewdog]

Most Important Take Away on Trump's Response to Bannon's Book

It's not Bannon's book. It's Michael Wolff's book. Bannon has just been quoting excerpts from it.

Might as well be Bannon's book, all the important quotes are from him.

 

[radical right]

And no you're not a living constitution believer, you're a believer that the government can do anything they please and you have no problem with the courts and the States allowing them to get away with it.


.

Just the opposite. If the government oversteps, the USSC can slap them down.

Your don't believe in having 9 lawyers interpret the constitution, so it means when the government does something,unconstitutional, there is nobody to stop them.

 

[OKTexas]

What about this sentence did you fail to understand?
.

When it comes to constitutional violations this one has to be the least offensive I could possibly think of.

It's either constitutional or un-constitutional. Kinda like being a little bit pregnant. If you want to use shades of grey over constitutionality you're falling into a rabbit hole.

Where did I say differently? Still waiting on that citation.


.

 

[OKTexas]

And no you're not a living constitution believer, you're a believer that the government can do anything they please and you have no problem with the courts and the States allowing them to get away with it.


.

Just the opposite. If the government oversteps, the USSC can slap them down.

Your don't believe in having 9 lawyers interpret the constitution, so it means when the government does something,unconstitutional, there is nobody to stop them.

Who slaps the court down when they overstep?


.

 

[radical right]

Which only proves that one decision is only as good as the next decision that vacates it. Meaning the constitution and law are not the final basis for a decision, if they were all decisions would be linear and no decision would need to vacated. The court is just a bunch of lawyers with differing opinions, not gods.


.

Nope, as times change, the meaning of the constitution should change with it. In the 1800;s a one piece bathing suit would have been "obscene". In the 1900's gay marriage would have been a crime against nature. In the 2000's time travel patents more than a century old were invalidated.

 

[OKTexas]

Which only proves that one decision is only as good as the next decision that vacates it. Meaning the constitution and law are not the final basis for a decision, if they were all decisions would be linear and no decision would need to vacated. The court is just a bunch of lawyers with differing opinions, not gods.


.

Nope, as times change, the meaning of the constitution should change with it. In the 1800;s a one piece bathing suit would have been "obscene". In the 1900's gay marriage would have been a crime against nature. In the 2000's time travel patents more than a century old were invalidated.

Change is what Article 5 is for. Only problem for you regressives is most of the crap you approve of would never be ratified, that's why you turn to the lawyers and not the Constitution.


.