FondrenRoad

To be fair, oahu horn admitted fault which simply does not occur here under any circumstance. Yes, he tried to mask that admission by attacking you personally, but you should wear both his admission and the associated cover personal attack as a badge of honor.

And can't edit, but to add to: 2) Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5: "The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States. Clause 4 says: 4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. --so the VP is Senate Officer 1 and the Senate shall choose other Officers in addition to him. There's also a 2nd amendment level shitty comma in there that could confuse the extent of the PPT's power, but the fact that the Senate can and does choose Officers is plainly written. --But again, maybe the PPT isn't a Constitutional Officer even though the Speaker is. That I could maybe agree with. PPT seems to be implicitly excluded from VP or "other Officers" as written in this clause alone. So Pelosi then Pompeo.

And really, knowing your posting history, I'd hire you to represent me before I hired myself, and still probably would, but this opening sentence is like Trump quoting a bible verse. It is just facially wrong and easily proven wrong with the actual text of the Constitution. But I know you didn't actually look it up. We are both lawyers. Neither of us are Constitutional lawyers. I don't recall reading the Constitution straight through ever, and there is nothing in the curriculum of Con Law 1 or 2 regarding the definition of "Officers". We live on "interpretation." The Constitution for lawyers is like the bible for Christians. Nobody reads it all the way through. And the best priests and lawyers can't even quote their core text at all. Even now, I just read the parts where Officers are mentioned or defined which just tells me you didn't do the same. So I'm asking you a favor. Actually do the research and then give me your argument for your position. It would be nice to have a constitutional law discussion on this board again. Everyone knows Trump sucks ass.

I never thought I'd feel this, but it is good to see a neocon argument again. And your argument here is a neocon one which came to the forefront in the early 2000s really, and like many neocon arguments, attempted to challenge 100 to 200 year old accepted truths about "founder intent." Its still wrong, IMHO, but its wrong in the old (10 years ago feels a century ago) ways where people could have disagreements, but understand the other side. So I truly am glad to see it. You and I have been on the same page too often lately anyway, to be honest. But, you're also wrong. "Officers of the United States" is the phrase used to refer specifically to appointed members of the executive branch in the Constitution. The word "Officer(s)" is used widely throughout the constitution, and refers to others besides those in the executive branch. So first, let's look at Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6. The clause in question here. "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected." I bolded "Officer", but as you can see, it is always followed in this clause by shall, and it is preceded by "what" and "such", neither of which are defining adjectives. Its a standalone word in this clause. On that, we can agree, right? So lets see what the founders thought about the word "(O)fficers" specifically. 1) Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers;" --Okay, really we could just end here, right? And come on LL, you know this is in the Constitution. Your point (1) is entirely dead. The Speaker is clearly an "Officer" as are the "other Officers" chosen by the House. 2) Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5: "The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States." -The Senate chooses "Officers" as well, but there is a tiny bit of leeway here for excluding the PPT. Maybe. So when we get to Article 2 is where you get stuck and why you're wrong: 3) Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. --This run on sentence clause is referring specifically to "Officers of the United States", not "Officers" of any type. This phrase is used 3 times in the Constitution as you'll see below. 4) Article 2, Section 3, Clause 1: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. 5) Article 2, Section 4, Clause 1: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. --So, in fact, this term of art by which you want to define all "Officers" in the Constitution is actually used only 3 times in the Constitution and is specifically used when the founders wanted to refer to Executive appointments. 6) And this is before we get into "judicial Officers" which are also mentioned in the Constitution. So, the founders had established a specific phrase for "executive appointed officers", but they chose not to use it in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6. Instead, they used the broader term "Officers" which they also used to explicitly describe the Speaker, to implicitly describe the PPT, and to explicitly describe other "Officers" appointed by both the House and Senate as well as judicial Officers. And also, not incidentally, that entire phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution at all until after 2-1-6, the clause in question. No matter what, the founders clearly understood that there were "Officers" in all 3 branches of government, and they also specifically chose to not narrowly define the term in 2-1-6 to mean only Executive Officers.: And that's not to say I don't think our current shitshow of a SCOTUS could rule wrongly. I'd bet on a wrong ruling even. Maybe not though. They often surprise with real jurisprudence. But you're better than that. Look at the below, and think of all the rulings based on the below phrasing, and tell me you still think the founders just accidentally left out "of the United States" in 2-1-6. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Your point (2): Yes, the Speaker or PPT acting or "being" the President would necessarily need to resign from the House or Senate. Your point(3): See the rebuttal to point 1. The Speaker is certainly a Constitutional Officer. The PPT likely is too, but not explicitly so.

They show them live, and then they also replay them right now.

I have some disagreements about point 1, but Lincoln died before the war was over. He didn't get to implement anything, so its kind of moot. I agree with points 2 and 3. Johnson wasn't a dictator. He couldn't completely throw out Republican Reconstruction plans even though he gave it some effort. 4, the South has never been economically viable in its history. Where Reconstruction failed is that many Republicans believe that economic or financial "recovery" would be beneficial to the South as a goal even though Southerners didn't care much about economics. The same holds true today. 5, I completely disagree. The entire current GOP, and Southern Democrats before them, are still interested in pre-Civil War Southern policies. While they do, at times, try to implement discriminatory policy at the federal level, mostly they are trying to undo federal controls and allow states to discriminate, or not discriminate, as they see fit. As for conspirators, sure, they never see the long game. They could have killed everyone in DC and that would have only made it worse for the South. Slavery also would not have lasted more than 20 or 30 years longer even if the South had won military victory. They'd have no trading partners and would have been at near constant war with European powers, not to mention the fact that the North would also switch to sanctions, embargoes, and economic pressure. But the conspirators did get the next best thing. They got a milder Reconstruction. They got to maintain discriminatory laws for another century, and they still continue to get to disenfranchise minorities.

It is interesting, but it is more a cause of complications than it is clearly unconstutional. Any break from the established line of succession without a new Succession Act will render the constitution and the nation as a whole null and void anyway. There is really no scenario that installs Pompeo over Pelosi or Grassley. But I do know what you are saying: 1) Are they "Officers?" "Officers" is, at times, used for various purposes within the Constitution itself, and even the Appointments Clause has a loophole which allows the courts to appoint "Officers of the United States". I don't think there would be a problem in that regard. The Executive branch, in its entire history, has never challenged, even in internal communications, the established order of succession. It has always been explicitly and implicitly accepted. The PPT has even been a designated survivor twice under Trump. 2) The primary Constitutional issue would be concurrent service in the legislative branch while "acting" as President. The Speaker, or president pro tempore would have to resign from Congress completely even if assuming the duties of the office of the President only temporarily. I'm not sure this will ever be ripe for challenge. None of the people in the line of succession are forced to assume the role. If both the Pres and VP were unconscious for an extended time, but expected to recover, it would likely be declined by the Speaker and the PPT, and fall to the Secy of State. This isn't really a dealbreaker. 3) The real constitutional issue is that Pres/VP dual incapacity would certainly first be subject to a 25th amendment section 4 declaration which has also never happened. And it allows for quite a bit of political wiggle room. Its also possible that Pres/VP dual deaths would first be subject to a 25th amendment section 4 declaration. Neither may actually be "dead" until the cabinet or another body appointed by Congress declare them dead. And we really don't have any judicial review regarding this either because JFK was killed in office 4 years before the 25th amendment was ratified. But JFK's death did play a role in getting the amendment written and ratified, and one of the primary issues was, specifically, that LBJ had health issues and could die soon also, and the Speaker and the PPT were too old to jump right in and may not have the mental capacity for it. So even then, while drafting a Constitutional amendment, the drafters considered the Speaker and PPT as legitimate successors under the Constitution. They had already concluded that they were constitutionally within the line of succession, so much so, that they didn't even feel the need to codify it further in the 25th amendment. So, in theory, let's say Trump and Pence both have heart attacks and die on the same day. The cabinet holds their 25th amendment meeting and sends a unanimous decision to Pelosi and Grassley 4 days after that decision. The House also unanimously confirms the Cabinet's decision. The Senate can't get a 2/3 vote through. McConnell thinks a dead Trump is executing his duties better than the live one was. Republic is over even if he is right for once. However, if one or both are disabled, but alive, the current Senate would never confirm the decision. We'd have a pseudo government until they died or woke back up. So instead let's say everyone confirms both deaths. And after all of this, Pelosi steps down from Speaker and tries to move into the White House. Pompeo challenges this even though he has in the past acknowledged that he is 4th in the line of succession, and Trump has also acted many times in acceptance of the line of succession. a) SCOTUS rules for Pelosi so long as she resigns completely from the House under any reasoning, whether it be 200 years of implicit acceptance, or deciding that Congressional officeholders are "Officers", or acknowledging the ability of the court to appoint "Officers of the United States" and appointing her. Doesn't really matter which way they choose to go. Republic stands. b) SCOTUS rules for Pompeo and installs him as President. Among other things, this overturns executive and legislative history that has been in place since at least 1792. But it will also be seen as an unconstitutional move toward fascism. Republic is over.

Yep, I messed that up, but the Secy of State was not next in line or in line at all. The 1792 Succession Act was in effect then. Under it, the president pro-tempore of the Senate was next in line. The Speaker was 2nd in line. The president pro tempore at the time of Lincoln's death was Lafayette Foster, a CT Republican. The House did try to make the Secy of State first in line when deliberating in 1791 and 1792, but the Senate rejected that, and ultimately the Senate version of the law was passed. The 1886 Succession Act made the Secy of State first in line, but that was well after Lincoln's assassination.

Yeah, I'm pulling for the Kiwoom Heroes. They've never won the league title, but were 2nd place last year so have a good squad. Those start times are killer though. Gonna have to watch the rebroadcasts which takes some of the enjoyment away from it.

Decided to see if my memory had been correct. Digging deeper, it was actually even more likely that Johnson was left alive on purpose. Colfax, a radical Republican, was Speaker at the time, and the Senate had a Republican majority. There was no Succession Act at the time, so the Speaker would not have necessarily been next in line, but the Republican Congress would have chosen under Constitutional provisions. No way the conspirators really wanted Johnson dead. He was the only Southern Democrat that even had a shot at taking over. The timing is even suspect only about a month after he was sworn in as VP.

The assassination worked. It installed Johnson as the President who opposed the 14th amendment, allowed Southern state gov'ts to carry on, opposed any type of truly punitive reconstruction, and allowed anti-black laws to go into place for nearly a century. Because of Johnson, the South ended up actually winning the war. Slavery was going to go away anyway. The restored union was largely built in the image of the South. The battle flag still flies, and minority political leadership still uses states rights rhetoric to marginalize and disenfranchise ethnic minorities. I also always found it interesting that Booth killed Lincoln and the guy assigned to kill Seward wounded him, but the guy assigned to kill Johnson got cold feet. Leaving Johnson alive was the best outcome the Confederate murderers could have hoped for. Not saying Johnson was in on it, but I think the plotters always intended for him to remain alive. Their goals aligned much like Putin and Trump.

Now imagine for a second if an imam had tweeted Liberate Michigan and then a muslim killed someone for trying to make him follow state law.

It is probably even worse than it looks in that graph. NY/NJ has been testing as much as possible while much of the rest of the nation has not been testing at the same rate, and some of the nation has been trying to pretend that the virus doesn't exist if you don't test for it. Total deaths compared to the year prior will paint a clearer picture when the numbers come out for states that are trying to sweep infection transparency under the rug.

Or maybe she thinks it might not be such a bad thing if it rips through Congress. Demographics and stuff.

The Man from Nowhere is the best Korean movie there is, IMO. And its better than the vast majority of American movies in the crowded "one man killing machine who just wanted to be left alone" genre. It also doesn't try to get trippy and cerebral like many of the other crossover Korean movies. Oldboy was entertaining, well acted, and well directed, but the plot was really fucking stupid. Sympathy was better, IMO. I second the recommendations for Train to Busan and Thirst. I'd also add The Host to the list.

Wrong! Sad washed up David Roth is still mad he got fired from Van Halen. I told Eddie that Sammy Hagar was the better singer. Eddie said you're right Mr. Trump, sir.

Double post

Forgot all about TG&Y. Also Sage which was pretty much the only store open on Sundays in Houston in the early part of my childhood.

On other topics, probably, but on this one, doubtful. Cops are more worried about infection than the general populace is. They show restraint here because they won't survive the backlash.

No, China isn't the primary issue. Every virus is going to come from somewhere. Shutting down potential sources of new viruses is a secondary issue. Your * also shows you know this. Also, before we start dumb trade war part 2 with China, we should actually fix our own internal supply chain first. Also, we need to consider the precedent that would be set by applying sanctions to a country of virus origin. Once we do it, it will become the thing that is done, and while some people like to pretend all viruses come from China, they don't. Either way, the current administration doesn't have the competence, patience, or tact to accomplish anything. We should wait for a Biden presidency so we can discourage wet markets through diplomatic pressure rather than a sanctions war, and so that we can establish a federally regulated supply chain for essential inputs.

Good, so she is just a complete dumbass instead of a Nazi.

I think wet markets need to be banned. They are Ford in my analogy. Trump is the distracted driver. The issue isn't that China is blameless when it comes to the initial spread of this virus from bats to humans. Its that some Americans seem to want to bear no responsibility at all for their own actions. China's response to the virus has been infinitely better than ours. This isn't the first virus in history. It won't be the last. Even if wet markets dissapear completely, there will always be another virus. We need to fix our response plan. Our economy shut down because of us, not China. It has been prolonged because of us, not China. The fact is that the "world's greatest country" doesn't give a shit about its own citizens, so we also have the shittiest stopgap plan in the industrialized world. The fact that a virus has polarized our populace even more than it was already is also on us, not China. We are a failed state because of us, not China. We were on the brink and dysfunctional well before the virus. All it did is expose our dysfunction. So while you are eager to shift blame elsewhere and pretend we are okay, it just isn't going to happen. You are going to have to take a cold hard look at our own flaws if you want the country to keep moving forward. It isn't ever going back to what it was.

While I mostly agree with you, like many countries we are supposedly ahead of on gender rights, South Korea has already had a female leader. We probably have a 50/50 shot of making it past 2050 while still never having a female leader. We still pretty much operate by "separate but equal" rules, but our diversity of interest and ethnicity allows that to generate sizable markets most of the time.

Horseshit. People that want shit changed aren't too frightened to actually fight for what they feel is right. Or face prison time. These marchers are pussies. They are even bigger pussies for carrying weapons they don't intend to use. Police are also pussies for handling them with kid gloves instead of using the same tear gas, rubber bullets, and batons they use on unarmed peaceful protesters.

Look, maybe Ford should have already installed automatic emergency braking on every car it makes too. But when you run over a kid because you're texting and driving, that kid's father is going to rightfully come kill you first before he worries about getting Ford to put in better safety measures. Democrats are making mistakes, sure, but the GOP is overplaying its hand severely. If Trump wins the election, this country is over with. We aren't gonna be in a war with China. We are gonna be in a a civil war.