What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official***President Donald Trump (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
rockaction said:
Every time I hear Article XII, for some poetic reason I think of this, which makes no sense probably to anybody but me. 

Particle Man
Click to expand...
If you look at the laws referenced in that article I posted to Tim dating to 1917 & 1977 and a couple in between, I'm guessing there is some fairly stupid language where Congress delegated that authority to executive branches. The problem is in the way the courts have so blurred the lines of executive authority by time and again just 'reading' that authority into enabling language by past Congresses. This would be a good time for a Scalia but I doubt anyone would admit it.

I think this is like the GSA and COI thing, Trump is going to be embroiled in constitutional controversies almost from the get go.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
If you look at the laws referenced in that article I posted to Tim dating to 1917 & 1977 and a couple in between, I'm guessing there is some fairly stupid language where Congress delegated that authority to executive branches. The problem is in the way the courts have so blurred the lines of executive authority by time and again just 'reading' that authority into enabling language by past Congresses. This would be a good time for a Scalia but I doubt anyone would admit it.

I think this is like the GSA and COI thing, Trump is going to be embroiled in constitutional controversies almost from the get go.
Click to expand...
I had a law school professor tell us Scalia was a friend to the executive branch, so Reagan chose him, so I'm not sure about that. 

But yeah, your opinion is really as good as mine. You need a practicing Con Law attorney on this, which is why I'm hesitant to comment, but I do know tariffs are specifically delegated to Congress just from basic study. 

Which Article XII really isn't.  Every time somebody starts railing about the Constitution, a great test is this. Ask him or her what Article I is about. There's your baseline.  

 
Lol.  Can't make this up.  Trump Winery applied for six HB2-A Visas for foreign workers to come do manual labor at $10 an hour beginning in January.

 
TobiasFunke said:
It's fairly simple- the president can issue an executive order on anything- he can issue one declaring that the FFA should be nicer to Timschochet if he wants.  But it will only have the force of law if it is within his powers as assigned by the constitution or federal legislation. 

If someone is aggreived by an executive order and thinks the order is beyond the scope of the presidents authority they can bring a legal challenge and will presumably prevail if they are right.  The fact that successful challenges are relatively few and far between should tell you something about whether all the whining about these is overblown. 
Click to expand...
okay then.   Obama issues an executive order.    Can Trump issue the same to flat negate or cancell the previous executive order?

 
TobiasFunke said:
I know there's a lot of mindboggling stuff about a Trump presidency, but to me the fact that he doesn't understand the basics of the Constitution is right up there.  It's hard to come up with an exact parallel, but it's kind of like we hired a CEO who doesn't understand the basics of corporate governance (shareholders, board of directors, etc) or a coach who doesn't understand the basic rules of the game.
Click to expand...
:shrug:  I agree completely. And I think we're going to see conflict between the rules and Trump almost immediately.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I know there's a lot of mindboggling stuff about a Trump presidency, but to me the fact that he doesn't understand the basics of the Constitution is right up there.  It's hard to come up with an exact parallel, but it's kind of like we hired a CEO who doesn't understand the basics of corporate governance (shareholders, board of directors, etc) or a coach who doesn't understand the basic rules of the game.
Click to expand...
Over half the Supreme Court doesn't understand the basics of the constitution.

 
rockaction said:
If I can talk you down and be Sylvie for a moment, that's any president, sitting or former. 
Click to expand...
Ha ok. I'm listening. I did say all modern presidents have this go at EOs. However I took Tobias' point more broadly. I think we're in for something much more significant than the normal, usual tug of war just because Trump's conceptualization of his role as president will very likely be abnormal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
The guy with a terrorist name thinks this. Do you really think that all crazies are deterred by detente?  
Click to expand...
I don't want to speak for Sinn, but I believe his response suggested that if everyone had nuclear weapons eventually somebody would use one, and so on, and so on.

Wa-la. World peace (technically).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
I had a law school professor tell us Scalia was a friend to the executive branch, so Reagan chose him, so I'm not sure about that. 

But yeah, your opinion is really as good as mine. You need a practicing Con Law attorney on this, which is why I'm hesitant to comment, but I do know tariffs are specifically delegated to Congress just from basic study. 

Which Article XII really isn't.  Every time somebody starts railing about the Constitution, a great test is this. Ask him or her what Article I is about. There's your baseline.  
Click to expand...
Something in the corner of my brain says you're right about Scalia so I officially retract that one. 

 
irishidiot said:
okay then.   Obama issues an executive order.    Can Trump issue the same to flat negate or cancell the previous executive order?
Click to expand...
Probably, but it depends on the nature of the order and the law/constitutional clause it relies upon.  In most cases the answer will be yes.

 
rockaction said:
I looked this up. I'm going to back off all Con questions in this thread unless they're backed by very specific people. 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/14/news/economy/trump-tariffs-china-mexico-trade-war/
Click to expand...
If you look at the bit at how Nixon did what he did in 1971 - that shows how ridiculous this stuff gets. 

The problem with the lawyers (forgive me) is they get hung up in the cases and jurisprudential language. Now you tell me how something like what Nixon did can be constitutionally justified. I'll tell you how, the cases they rely on are flat out wrong.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Soonerman said:
Over half the Supreme Court doesn't understand the basics of the constitution.
Click to expand...
Pretty much every judge, lawyer, law student, and person who took an undergraduate con law class, along with a good number of people who just took a high school level civics/government class, would know exactly what a congressman means when he asks about protecting his institution's Article 1 powers.

If you don't see the problem with a president-elect who clearly did not know what the question meant, I'm not sure what to tell you.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Pretty much every judge, lawyer, law student, and person who took an undergraduate con law class, along with a good number of people who just took a high school level civics/government class, would know exactly what a congressman means when he asks about protecting his institution's Article 1 powers.

If you don't see the problem with a president-elect who clearly did not know what the question meant, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Click to expand...
As opposed to a President that DID know and ran rough-shod over the Constitution anyways?  I'm not going to worry too much about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Pretty much every judge, lawyer, law student, and person who took an undergraduate con law class, along with a good number of people who just took a high school level civics/government class, would know exactly what a congressman means when he asks about protecting his institution's Article 1 powers.

If you don't see the problem with a president-elect who clearly did not know what the question meant, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Click to expand...
The only caveat I'd raise is that our modern education is so concerned with the BoR that many bright people don't know the structure of the Constitution. My high school Con Law class was all the basics of individual rights, and had nothing to do with the Articles, and we all read edited cases. Same with college. These were courses at really good schools, too. 

It's why Walter Berns took to saying "The Constitution itself is a Bill of Rights"

 
Meanwhile, Evan McMullin continues to be the best counter-Trump voice out there.  Going at Newt for (among other things) reversing himself on "drain the swamp" on twitter now. 

 
Here's something to consider...if Trump is so worried about our nuclear arsenal, why did he appoint Rick Perry to the Department of Energy over someone actually, you know, qualified who knows something about nuclear technology?

 
Honestly, tweeting about increasing our nuclear arsenal?  What's the point when you can already blow up the world a couple times over?  I was willing to give him a chance, but this kind of #### is beyond reckless.  What possible far-thinking aim could he have that I'm just too dumb to see?

 
James Daulton said:
Honestly, tweeting about increasing our nuclear arsenal?  What's the point when you can already blow up the world a couple times over?  I was willing to give him a chance, but this kind of #### is beyond reckless.  What possible far-thinking aim could he have that I'm just too dumb to see?
Click to expand...
I don't think he has far-thinking aims.

 
GoBirds said:
:potkettle:
Click to expand...
No, I'm fairly certain you can't find and examples of people beating up and urinating on homeless people while extolling the politics of Bernie Sanders.  Nobody's spray-painting swastikas and "go home" and "Die " alongside Hillary Clinton's name.  Nobody's chanting "Change you can believe in!" at minorities during sporting events.  Nobody is harassing Jewish journalists who write profiles of Joe Biden with threats to gas them and use their skin to make lampshades.

Shall I go on? I think we both know there's plenty more where that came from.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kiddnets
How did you become a fan of your favorite team(s)?
2 3
Replies
108
Views
2K
ConstruxBoy
ConstruxBoy
Caveman33
No One's Making Fun of Scooter Kids Anymore
Replies
2
Views
128
Major
Major
fatness
FBI finds largest cache of "finished explosive devices" in FBI history
Replies
18
Views
1K
Snoopy
Snoopy

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top