Sec’y of Ed nominee.

[Moonglow]

I’m not making up anything: nor am I calling anything law.

What dolts, like you, seem either unable or unwilling to comprehend is this:

If the creation of the Dept of Education is itself unconstitutional, then it doesn’t require an act of Congress to terminate the Department of Education.

Appropriation of funds is authorized by the Constitution and must be spend on the specific mandate of the funds use.

 

[Moonglow]

I’m truly uninterested in partisan crap like his prior impeachments

It was law, tough shit.ofcourse you don't want to hear about it, now stick yer head back in the sand

 

[DGS49]

It would be entertaining in the extreme to see what the USSC would do with a case that simply asked it if the Department of Education is a legitimate exercise of Congress' Article I power.

Honestly, I don't think even Roberts could save it (as he did with Obamacare).

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. I am right. Dismantling that Department would be so easy even a dopey libturd could do it.

They wouldn’t. But they could. Truly not difficult.

There is your error as has been pointed out to you numerous time. Without that, what have you got? Nothing!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It would be entertaining in the extreme to see what the USSC would do with a case that simply asked it if the Department of Education is a legitimate exercise of Congress' Article I power.

Honestly, I don't think even Roberts could save it (as he did with Obamacare).

Necessary and proper clause.

 

[debbiedowner]

The solicitor general isn’t the AG. Arguing the case before the SCOTUS is not the point and never was. (And, by the way, you self important asshole, you’re also wrong. An AG is certainly allowed to grant himself the task of making the oral arguments to the SCOTUS. RFK did it as AG, for instance.)

And the SCOTUS would almost certainly permit the President to eliminate the Dept of Education since it clearly does not comport with the Constitution.

There is not a single solitary grant of any enumerated power given to the federal government over “Education.”

Try again, ensign.

Probably no sense argueing about Gaetz, just on our local news in his district he is withdrawing consideration for AG..

 

[BackAgain]

Appropriation of funds is authorized by the Constitution and must be spend on the specific mandate of the funds use.

Yes. We all know that.

However, you persist in ignoring the obvious. If the moneys are to be spent on and by an entity which is unconstitutional, a President ought to refuse to spend that money. Eventually, the issue would end up in court.

This brings the discussion back around to where it stood prior to your meaninglesss post.

Maybe you have an actual answer? Let’s find out:

Name the power enumerated in the Constitution which permits the federal government to address the matter of education.

 

[BackAgain]

It was law, tough shit.ofcourse you don't want to hear about it, now stick yer head back in the sand

No no. The prior impeachments were not “law.”

Try to follow along, goon. You pinhead.

 

[BackAgain]

There is your error as has been pointed out to you numerous time. Without that, what have you got? Nothing!

Your remain a bloviating ignorant asshat.

Nobody (and absolutely not you) has pointed out any error I have actually made.

Your ignorant unsupported mere opinions don’t qualify.

 

[BackAgain]

Necessary and proper clause.

That’s not an enumerated power, ensign.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Your remain a bloviating ignorant asshat.

Nobody (and absolutely not you) has pointed out any error I have actually made.

Your ignorant unsupported mere opinions don’t qualify.

There is no presidential power to do away with federal government departments. Congress must do so. That is your error and has been pointed out many times.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That’s not an enumerated power, ensign.

It is in the Constitution and used to establish whatever laws are necessary and proper to govern. It is known as the "elastic clause". You might learn that if you ever took my class on government that I taught for years.

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution12. It grants Congress the authority to use all means necessary and proper to execute the enumerated powers123. The clause allows Congress to create laws that are not expressly given in the Constitution but are essential to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities34. It encompasses implied and incidental powers conducive to the beneficial exercise of an enumerated power5.

Necessary and Proper Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

Now, sit down and shut up! Class is almost over for today.

 

[Moonglow]

I’m not making up anything: nor am I calling anything law.

What dolts, like you, seem either unable or unwilling to comprehend is this:

If the creation of the Dept of Education is itself unconstitutional, then it doesn’t require an act of Congress to terminate the Department of Education.

Who has determined it was unconstitutional?

 

[BackAgain]

There is no presidential power to do away with federal government departments.

Try to follow along.

If he, as President, determines (at long last) that the Department if Education is unconstitutional, he is obligated under his oath to fix that problem. So, as usual, you remain wrong no matter how much you repeat your line.

Congress must do so.

No. Congress should do so. But they might refuse to do; and in that event the President must still act pursuant to his oath of office. Indeed, he isn’t obligated to wait. An oath is an oath.

That is your error and has been pointed out many times.

Wrong. It is not an error at all. And no matter how often you repeat your own error, you still haven’t pointed out any error on my part.

 

[BackAgain]

Who has determined it was unconstitutional?

Irrelevant. If the President makes that determination, it’s his duty to act accordingly.

I notice you can’t point to any enumerated power. It’s as expected.

 

[BackAgain]

It is in the Constitution and used to establish whatever laws are necessary and proper to govern. It is known as the "elastic clause". You might learn that if you ever took my class on government that I taught for years.

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution12. It grants Congress the authority to use all means necessary and proper to execute the enumerated powers123. The clause allows Congress to create laws that are not expressly given in the Constitution but are essential to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities34. It encompasses implied and incidental powers conducive to the beneficial exercise of an enumerated power5.

Necessary and Proper Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

Now, sit down and shut up! Class is almost over for today.

It is not an enumerated power.

You don’t understand the issue.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Try to follow along.

If he, as President, determines (at long last) that the Department if Education is unconstitutional, he is obligated under his oath to fix that problem. So, as usual, you remain wrong no matter how much you repeat your line.


No. Congress should do so. But they might refuse to do; and in that event the President must still act pursuant to his oath of office. Indeed, he isn’t obligated to wait. An oath is an oath.

Wrong. It is not an error at all. And no matter how often you repeat your own error, you still haven’t pointed out any error on my part.

Please cite the Constitutional authority for any President to simply declare a law. The oath is irrelevant, Presidents do not determine the continuality of a law, that is done by SCOTUS. Without the oath, what is his authority. It says 'support and defend". It doesn't say interpret and declare.

Did you ever take a government of civics class? All evidence is to the contrary. What's worse is you refuse to read the proof I have provided.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It is not an enumerated power.

You don’t understand the issue.

You don't read for comprehension very well, do you? How's that GED working out for you?

 

[BackAgain]

Please cite the Constitutional authority for any President to simply declare a law. The oath is irrelevant, Presidents do not determine the continuality of a law, that is done by SCOTUS. Without the oath, what is his authority. It says 'support and defend". It doesn't say interpret and declare.

Did you ever take a government of civics class? All evidence is to the contrary. What's worse is you refuse to read the proof I have provided.

It’s amazing to see how shallow and ignorant you are, ensign.

His oath of office is not remotely irrelevant.

Let’s take it from a slightly different angle.

Ridiculous Hypothetical. But let’s say there has existed a Department of Negro Affairs. And its legislated mission is to make sure nothing happens to permit the subject race to be lifted up.

Along comes a President elect. He names a person to be the Secretary of that misbegotten Department. But his objective is to have the nominee (once the President Elect assumes Office) dismantle that obviously unconstitutional department.

Under his Oath of Office, that’s his duty.

It doesn’t matter whether you care for his decision or if you disagree that he has sufficient inherent authority to direct the dismantling and dissolution of that Department. His duty is still his duty. And such a department would be unconstitutional.

Although the Department of Education is clearly not AS offensive, it is still not Constitutional.

And you may stand at ease, ensign. It would obviously still get litigated by the courts.

 

[BackAgain]

You don't read for comprehension very well, do you? How's that GED working out for you?

You don’t understand much of anything.

I don’t care how highly you cherish your high school diploma. The education system still failed you.