• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rush Gets it re Expulsion of The Parisite

DaveFagan said:
Our Nation has been about Energy and Wars and those power centers are our real enemy. The MSM is guilty of cheerleading for these groups because of Intelligence Agency presence in all influential media. First, you must get everyone to see this and the mesmerizing MSM will not help. I guess it's up to you, me, grandma and the dog.
/
Click to expand...

Incoherent rambling about dogs and mesmerizing and supposed "intelligence agency" prescence in the media does not convince anyone.
 
cpwill said:
Congress did this under Bush and Obama. Obama tried an end-run and the SCOTUS slapped him down hard.
Click to expand...

The last Congress that actually made it illegal for the POTUS to fire an official in his Administration was the 39th Congress (1865-1867) on March 2nd, 1867, two days before the 40th Congress was sworn in, and was the law used to Impeach President Andrew Johnson. The bill prohibited the president from removing officials appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate without senatorial approval. The bill was passed again over the veto of President Johnson and became law (Tenure of Office Act) on March 3rd, 1867, the very day before the 40th Congress was sworn in - talk about a power grab.

Although related, but not exactly the same foundation, the Supreme Court ruled against the Tenure of Office Act and the Congress' assumed power to limit the POTUS' power to fire people in his Administration in Myers v. United States. In that case, the SCOTUS ruled that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body to do so. I'm sure that case would be cited by Trump's attorney's, but I'm not sure it would hold up under these conditions.

IMHO, the Congress does not have the Constitutional power to prevent a President from firing anyone in his Administration - however, they still have the Constitutional Power of Impeachment and they can do that over pretty much anything they choose to say is an impeachable offence.

I think if Congress passes a law restricting the POTUS, the SCOTUS will overrule it. If that happens, and Trump fires Mueller, I think there's a better than 50% chance Trump get's impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate, and removed from office Constitutionally.
 
NIMBY said:
GOPs simply beat DEMs to the punch, to cya, since DEMs could have used McConnell's rules to hold the Senate open in perpetuity .
Click to expand...

That's not my understanding. Even though the Motion to Adjourn still has precedence over all other motions and can be used to stop debate or delay a vote while waiting on the vote on the Motion to Adjourn to conclude, the Senate Majority Leader can call a Motion to Adjourn and it can pass by unanimous consent if no Democrats are on the floor to object, or if there is an objection then it can pass with a simple majority 51 votes (which the 51st vote could be the VP) instead of a supermajority.

I'm trying to find the rule for you.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The last Congress that actually made it illegal for the POTUS to fire an official in his Administration was the 39th Congress (1865-1867) on March 2nd, 1867, two days before the 40th Congress was sworn in, and was the law used to Impeach President Andrew Johnson. The bill prohibited the president from removing officials appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate without senatorial approval. The bill was passed again over the veto of President Johnson and became law (Tenure of Office Act) on March 3rd, 1867, the very day before the 40th Congress was sworn in - talk about a power grab.

Although related, but not exactly the same foundation, the Supreme Court ruled against the Tenure of Office Act and the Congress' assumed power to limit the POTUS' power to fire people in his Administration in Myers v. United States. In that case, the SCOTUS ruled that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body to do so. I'm sure that case would be cited by Trump's attorney's, but I'm not sure it would hold up under these conditions.

IMHO, the Congress does not have the Constitutional power to prevent a President from firing anyone in his Administration - however, they still have the Constitutional Power of Impeachment and they can do that over pretty much anything they choose to say is an impeachable offence.

I think if Congress passes a law restricting the POTUS, the SCOTUS will overrule it. If that happens, and Trump fires Mueller, I think there's a better than 50% chance Trump get's impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate, and removed from office Constitutionally.
Click to expand...

Good point - I should note I was addressing recess appointments, not "Making It Illegal To Fire Someone", which seems to me a pretty problematic breach of Article II powers.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
how exactly does keeping Trump from interfering in the investigation into himself keep him from putting his agenda in place? You'll have to explain that one to me, is there something about investigations that prevent him from signing laws or working on legislation? Does the investigation keep him from talking to his generals? Does the investigation do anything at all to impede his ability to govern?

Because as far as I can tell the only problem Trump has with Sessions performance so far, is his recusal and inability to influence the investigation into Trump. So explain to me please, how Trump's agenda relies on his ability to fire anyone investigating him in order to replace them with a stooge...

Not to say that Sessions isn't a stooge, he's just a stooge who recused himself and is unable to perform the required stoogery that Trump apparently needs to pass legislation and push his agenda.
Click to expand...

This is excellent.
 
I'm surprised people aren't too embarrassed to admit they listen to rush in public
 
katzgar said:
I'm surprised people aren't too embarrassed to admit they listen to rush in public
Click to expand...
If that degenerate Limbaugh and his likeminded listeners would feel any embarrassment Trump would not have won.
 
Visbek said:
I hope that's not true, because Limbaugh is pretty much the last person I'd trust to make judgments about what is and is not Constitutional.

The Legislature has already made it illegal for Trump to directly fire Mueller. Because Sessions recused himself, only Rosenstein can fire Mueller. Trump could fire a string of AG's and Deputy AG's until he finds someone who fires Mueller, but he can't do it directly.

For those who have no historical awareness at all, that's what got Nixon into deep ****. He wanted to fire the special prosecutor Archibald Cox, but couldn't do it directly. Instead, he forced the resignations (i.e. fired) his AG and Deputy AG, until he found someone willing to do it. Cox was quickly reinstated by a federal judge, public opinion tilted towards impeachment, and Congress started passing resolutions. Firing Mueller (including firing Sessions to get to Mueller) would be a complete disaster for Trump.

Unsurprisingly, Trump's erratic behavior and lack of respect for rule of law has prompted some Senators to want to pass laws providing additional protection for these types of independent investigations. And yes, those changes would be Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Just an FYI, I believe the guy Nixon found to fire Cox was Judge Robert Bork. Bork was one of Reagan's nominations for SCOTUS who thankfully, was rejected.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
That Congress is not getting anything done we know, the question is why, do they really suck this bad, or is this part of the run up to the impeachment?

I have suspected the latter, that plus this plus some other things leads to the conclusion the Congressional R's are getting ready to throw in with the D Division of the DC ELITE to get rid of the people's choice.

Trump was not approved by them, is not acceptable to them, so he cant stay.
Click to expand...

I'd go with option A. They really suck. I'll believe impeachment when I see it. From either party. The saving grace is that the Democrats suck as badly.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/08/07/republicans-are-loyal-to-the-establishment-not-you/


There is not much for me to say, since I have been talking like this for eons.
Click to expand...

Since Rush has been stating for decades that the government is the problem and never does anything productive, shouldn't Rush welcome a government that is not doing anything? By the way, Trump's ideology is against free-trade, free-speech, smaller government, and weren't those supposedly the ideas that the Republican party supports? So, wouldn't it be the case that Trump is not showing loyalty to the Republicans as opposed to the other way around?

Moreover, didn't Rush welcome any and all efforts to prevent Obama and Clinton from doing anything? So, why then should he complain if people are now exercising their rights to oppose policies by Trump that they disagree with? Especially when most Americans did not vote for Trump and do not like him?
 
Wisdom said:
Since Rush has been stating for decades that the government is the problem and never does anything productive, shouldn't Rush welcome a government that is not doing anything? By the way, Trump's ideology is against free-trade, free-speech, smaller government, and weren't those supposedly the ideas that the Republican party supports? So, wouldn't it be the case that Trump is not showing loyalty to the Republicans as opposed to the other way around?

Moreover, didn't Rush welcome any and all efforts to prevent Obama and Clinton from doing anything? So, why then should he complain if people are now exercising their rights to oppose policies by Trump that they disagree with? Especially when most Americans did not vote for Trump and do not like him?
Click to expand...

I hate to disillusion you, but there is a whole lot of hypocrisy in the world of politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom