Nixon said "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. Was he right?

[Hum Dinger]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Your wrong in your first statement - you underestimate the hypocrisy of the political right.

In the future if any liberal President does half the B.S. that they've supported for Trump, they'll pitch a fit and do their best to have them removed from office.

They simply do not believe in the rule of law.

This is incorrect.

The Republicans will impeach the next Democrat President for the same reasons the Democrats are impeaching Trump.

Just because they want to.

Incorrect?

You just proved EXACTLY what I said!

 

[Hum Dinger]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Your wrong in your first statement - you underestimate the hypocrisy of the political right.

In the future if any liberal President does half the B.S. that they've supported for Trump, they'll pitch a fit and do their best to have them removed from office.

They simply do not believe in the rule of law.

Yes, but a precedent is being set right now.

The precedent of "letting presidents do what ever they want" will only be applied to conservative Presidents.

They'll have an entirely different set of rules for liberal presidents.

 

[Hum Dinger]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Your wrong in your first statement - you underestimate the hypocrisy of the political right.

In the future if any liberal President does half the B.S. that they've supported for Trump, they'll pitch a fit and do their best to have them removed from office.

They simply do not believe in the rule of law.

Yes, but a precedent is being set right now.

Yes it is!

We don't want a parliamentary Congress, that has an approval rating hovering in the low teens and single digits for the last 20 years, embarking on an 'age of impeachment' over our Executive Branch that is unconstitutional and rooted in outdated western European governance!

Why the **** do you think the Revolutionary War was fought and we kicked the Brits off of our continent? Just to have a similar apparition appear??

(Drop the Mic.....).

You seem to think in a sort of ass backwards kinda way!

This country was started with Continental Congress and NO president at all.

When the office of the President was created by the Constitution the President had very limited powers.

Over the years the powers of the presidency have grown - Abraham Lincoln and FDR were primarily responsible for the increased powers of the Presidency.

Now Trump is expanding those powers by declaring that the second article of the constitution let's him do whatever he wants. He's basically declaring himself to be a dictator.

The revolutionary war was fought to get rid of dictators like George V and Donald trump. It was fought for a country of laws not of men. It was fought for a government where power was divided between 3 branches of government - not vested solely in a President that does whatever he wants!

It would be a hell of a lot better if impeachment became routine!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Your wrong in your first statement - you underestimate the hypocrisy of the political right.

In the future if any liberal President does half the B.S. that they've supported for Trump, they'll pitch a fit and do their best to have them removed from office.

They simply do not believe in the rule of law.

Yes, but a precedent is being set right now.

Yes it is!

We don't want a parliamentary Congress, that has an approval rating hovering in the low teens and single digits for the last 20 years, embarking on an 'age of impeachment' over our Executive Branch that is unconstitutional and rooted in outdated western European governance!

Why the **** do you think the Revolutionary War was fought and we kicked the Brits off of our continent? Just to have a similar apparition appear??

(Drop the Mic.....).

You seem to think in a sort of ass backwards kinda way!

This country was started with Continental Congress and NO president at all.

When the office of the President was created by the Constitution the President had very limited powers.

Over the years the powers of the presidency have grown - Abraham Lincoln and FDR were primarily responsible for the increased powers of the Presidency.

Now Trump is expanding those powers by declaring that the second article of the constitution let's him do whatever he wants. He's basically declaring himself to be a dictator.

The revolutionary war was fought to get rid of dictators like George V and Donald trump. It was fought for a country of laws not of men. It was fought for a government where power was divided between 3 branches of government - not vested solely in a President that does whatever he wants!

It would be a hell of a lot better if impeachment became routine!

 

[DOTR]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

I'm betting if tRump loses in November(pretty safe bet right now) the senate will spend the last few weeks voting to limit executive powers.

This is the depth and understanding of the third world thinking uneducated Democrat serfs. They think the Senate gives and takes executive branch powers. Sheesh.

 

[Indeependent]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

There are tons and layers of legislation regarding Presidents and we thus have zilch idea of what Presidents can do.

 

[colfax_m]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Your wrong in your first statement - you underestimate the hypocrisy of the political right.

In the future if any liberal President does half the B.S. that they've supported for Trump, they'll pitch a fit and do their best to have them removed from office.

They simply do not believe in the rule of law.

Here’s how the right gets away with it.
1. Make up a story about Obama personally demanding an investigation into the Trump campaign.

2. Complain that no one is investigating the allegation or complain the investigation into the allegation was a cover up because it didn’t demonstrate what you wanted to believe.

3. Trump demands politically motivated investigation into Biden.

4. It’s not a problem because Obama did it.

 

[DOTR]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Your wrong in your first statement - you underestimate the hypocrisy of the political right.

In the future if any liberal President does half the B.S. that they've supported for Trump, they'll pitch a fit and do their best to have them removed from office.

They simply do not believe in the rule of law.

Yes, but a precedent is being set right now.

Yes it is!

We don't want a parliamentary Congress, that has an approval rating hovering in the low teens and single digits for the last 20 years, embarking on an 'age of impeachment' over our Executive Branch that is unconstitutional and rooted in outdated western European governance!

Why the **** do you think the Revolutionary War was fought and we kicked the Brits off of our continent? Just to have a similar apparition appear??

(Drop the Mic.....).

You seem to think in a sort of ass backwards kinda way!

This country was started with Continental Congress and NO president at all.

When the office of the President was created by the Constitution the President had very limited powers.

Over the years the powers of the presidency have grown - Abraham Lincoln and FDR were primarily responsible for the increased powers of the Presidency.

Now Trump is expanding those powers by declaring that the second article of the constitution let's him do whatever he wants. He's basically declaring himself to be a dictator.

The revolutionary war was fought to get rid of dictators like George V and Donald trump. It was fought for a country of laws not of men. It was fought for a government where power was divided between 3 branches of government - not vested solely in a President that does whatever he wants!

It would be a hell of a lot better if impeachment became routine!

I’m sure you meant George III. What’s important is that the Founding Fathers did intentionally create a Presidency much more powerful than King George’s monarchy.

They rejected a parliamentary system that would make him accountable to the legislature.
He has the power of veto over legislation.
He is absolute commander in chief of armed forces and does not have to exercise the authority through ministers.
He chooses his own cabinet (with some restrictions)
He is head of state and head of government
He can grant pardons
He can prosecute cases
He commissions military officers
He can call congress into session.

The British monarch had lost all these powers well before the American Revolution.

The Founders had had enough of the Continental Congress.

 

[BULLDOG]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

I'm betting if tRump loses in November(pretty safe bet right now) the senate will spend the last few weeks voting to limit executive powers.

This is the depth and understanding of the third world thinking uneducated Democrat serfs. They think the Senate gives and takes executive branch powers. Sheesh.

Their behavior in the impeachment will set precedent which will effect how executive power is limited or not limited

 

[BULLDOG]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

There are tons and layers of legislation regarding Presidents and we thus have zilch idea of what Presidents can do.

Bullshit.

 

[Indeependent]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

There are tons and layers of legislation regarding Presidents and we thus have zilch idea of what Presidents can do.

Bullshit.

Why are you posting your user name?

 

[easyt65]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Wow.....losing really causes you to become 'deep', huh?!




The powers of the President, the Constitution, Impeachment - the Founding Fathers spelled it all out. Thank God this assault on the Constitution was rejected, as if it were left to the TDS-suffering Democrats one could Impeach a President in the future simply for 'hating' him, which they nearly did.





.

 

[Hum Dinger]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Your wrong in your first statement - you underestimate the hypocrisy of the political right.

In the future if any liberal President does half the B.S. that they've supported for Trump, they'll pitch a fit and do their best to have them removed from office.

They simply do not believe in the rule of law.

Yes, but a precedent is being set right now.

Yes it is!

We don't want a parliamentary Congress, that has an approval rating hovering in the low teens and single digits for the last 20 years, embarking on an 'age of impeachment' over our Executive Branch that is unconstitutional and rooted in outdated western European governance!

Why the **** do you think the Revolutionary War was fought and we kicked the Brits off of our continent? Just to have a similar apparition appear??

(Drop the Mic.....).

You seem to think in a sort of ass backwards kinda way!

This country was started with Continental Congress and NO president at all.

When the office of the President was created by the Constitution the President had very limited powers.

Over the years the powers of the presidency have grown - Abraham Lincoln and FDR were primarily responsible for the increased powers of the Presidency.

Now Trump is expanding those powers by declaring that the second article of the constitution let's him do whatever he wants. He's basically declaring himself to be a dictator.

The revolutionary war was fought to get rid of dictators like George V and Donald trump. It was fought for a country of laws not of men. It was fought for a government where power was divided between 3 branches of government - not vested solely in a President that does whatever he wants!

It would be a hell of a lot better if impeachment became routine!

I’m sure you meant George III. What’s important is that the Founding Fathers did intentionally create a Presidency much more powerful than King George’s monarchy.

They rejected a parliamentary system that would make him accountable to the legislature.
He has the power of veto over legislation.
He is absolute commander in chief of armed forces and does not have to exercise the authority through ministers.
He chooses his own cabinet (with some restrictions)
He is head of state and head of government
He can grant pardons
He can prosecute cases
He commissions military officers
He can call congress into session.

The British monarch had lost all these powers well before the American Revolution.

The Founders had had enough of the Continental Congress.

The founders were mostly members of Congress.

Congress has the power to override his veto
The Senate has to approve any treaties he negotiated
The House can impeach him and the Senate can remove him
The President has no power over Congress other than the veto
The courts can reverse his policies
Congress has the power to oversee the President. The reverse is not true.
All President's appointees have to be approved by the Senate
All departments in the Administration have to be created by an act of Congress
The President's and his administration's budgets are controlled by Congress.
The President's cabinet are the executive officers of the departments created by Congress.
Congress has the power to create new Constitutional amendments.

The British Monarchy only lost these powers over those who were represented by members of parliament.

The American colonies were under the direct rule of the King. All colony's governors were appointed by the King.

The President had to get reelected every 4 years. The King was King for life and his crown was inherited.

The original function of the U.S. president was simply to execute and administer the laws enacted by congress. Nothing more.

 

[bendog]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

If he's Trump, yer dman right he's legal. Now if he's that muslim Kenyan socialist … then he needs impeaching.

 

[CWayne]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Your wrong in your first statement - you underestimate the hypocrisy of the political right.

In the future if any liberal President does half the B.S. that they've supported for Trump, they'll pitch a fit and do their best to have them removed from office.

They simply do not believe in the rule of law.

This is incorrect.

The Republicans will impeach the next Democrat President for the same reasons the Democrats are impeaching Trump.

Just because they want to.

Incorrect?

You just proved EXACTLY what I said!

Think about it a bit longer and you may actually get it.

 

[Bush92]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Dollar diplomacy has been practiced by Presidents since Washington. Democrats in the House are trying a power play to upset the balance between the co-equal branches of government. They had zero evidence of a violation of federal statues. If you bring a case the dumbasses better come strong or don't come at all. Their case was 100% partisan and weak.

 

[Bush92]

Nixon isn't being impeached. Belongs in HISTORY

It is an excellent question. Anyone favor the Unitary President theory?

"....unless the Constitution says the president can't do something, the president can do it. That argument underwent a fundamental shift after 1980. Reagan and his attorney general, Ed Meese, regarded the Democratic-majority Congress as the enemy. They needed a theory that would let them act at home and abroad without congressional authorization, withhold information from Congress at their pleasure, and resist any attempt by Congress to find out what was going on or limit their freedom of maneuver. To Hamilton's already radical view of the executive power, they added the "unitary executive" idea.

That idea says that because "the" executive power is vested in "a president," any attempt to limit the president's control over the executive branch is unconstitutional. It supposedly follows from the "the" and the "a" that members of the executive branch are solely accountable to the president alone, and the president, in turn, may order anyone who works in the executive branch to exercise his or her discretion in fulfilling any official function however the president personally thinks best."

Constitutional Myth #3: The 'Unitary Executive' is a Dictator in War and Peace

What about the Jay Treaty and George Washington? Executive Privilege goes back to the very beginning of our Republic. Democratic Party has shown how irresponsible, biased, and dangerous they are to the nation.

 

[Bush92]

Clearly the answer should be no but apparently the president can do anything he wants if he happens to lead a party that wants to serve a king.

Your referring to O right?

Nope, all he did was dare to occasionally use powers the last guy seized for himself. We all know the unitary president philosophy applies to republicans only.

Clinton? Obama? FDR?

 

[The Original Tree]

We should impeach Thomas Jefferson for creating The Marines and sending them after his enemies in Tripoli.

Nixon isn't being impeached. Belongs in HISTORY

It is an excellent question. Anyone favor the Unitary President theory?

"....unless the Constitution says the president can't do something, the president can do it. That argument underwent a fundamental shift after 1980. Reagan and his attorney general, Ed Meese, regarded the Democratic-majority Congress as the enemy. They needed a theory that would let them act at home and abroad without congressional authorization, withhold information from Congress at their pleasure, and resist any attempt by Congress to find out what was going on or limit their freedom of maneuver. To Hamilton's already radical view of the executive power, they added the "unitary executive" idea.

That idea says that because "the" executive power is vested in "a president," any attempt to limit the president's control over the executive branch is unconstitutional. It supposedly follows from the "the" and the "a" that members of the executive branch are solely accountable to the president alone, and the president, in turn, may order anyone who works in the executive branch to exercise his or her discretion in fulfilling any official function however the president personally thinks best."

Constitutional Myth #3: The 'Unitary Executive' is a Dictator in War and Peace

What about the Jay Treaty and George Washington? Executive Privilege goes back to the very beginning of our Republic. Democratic Party has shown how irresponsible, biased, and dangerous they are to the nation.

 

[Bush92]

We should impeach Thomas Jefferson for creating The Marines and sending them after his enemies in Tripoli.

Nixon isn't being impeached. Belongs in HISTORY

It is an excellent question. Anyone favor the Unitary President theory?

"....unless the Constitution says the president can't do something, the president can do it. That argument underwent a fundamental shift after 1980. Reagan and his attorney general, Ed Meese, regarded the Democratic-majority Congress as the enemy. They needed a theory that would let them act at home and abroad without congressional authorization, withhold information from Congress at their pleasure, and resist any attempt by Congress to find out what was going on or limit their freedom of maneuver. To Hamilton's already radical view of the executive power, they added the "unitary executive" idea.

That idea says that because "the" executive power is vested in "a president," any attempt to limit the president's control over the executive branch is unconstitutional. It supposedly follows from the "the" and the "a" that members of the executive branch are solely accountable to the president alone, and the president, in turn, may order anyone who works in the executive branch to exercise his or her discretion in fulfilling any official function however the president personally thinks best."

Constitutional Myth #3: The 'Unitary Executive' is a Dictator in War and Peace

What about the Jay Treaty and George Washington? Executive Privilege goes back to the very beginning of our Republic. Democratic Party has shown how irresponsible, biased, and dangerous they are to the nation.

Exactly. Liberals are ridiculous.