Trump's Immigration Ban
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-01-2017, 12:18 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(30-01-2017 11:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  attorneys general Yes

Well spotted Chas... attorney general is defined as a "head-first compound noun", rather than a regular compound noun. The back-to-front phrase is a throwback to when French was the tongue of the Norman-French overlords, and therefore the language of the government, military, and legal system of the day. So 'attorney' is the subject, and 'general' the adjective.

—So ends today's boring grammar lesson. Smokin

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
31-01-2017, 12:18 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 12:04 AM)SYZ Wrote:  As I understand it, the Republicans hold 52% of the Senate seats, and 55% of the House of Reps.

My question is—because of this small majority—do any of the Republicans ever and/or often cross the floor and vote with the Democrats to defeat proposed legislation? Why is Drumpf so confident that Congress will support him if this is in fact the case?

I'm also not sure of the voting process in the Congress. If 5 Republicans cross the floor, it means that the vote goes to the Democrat side in the Senate does it not? Assuming that 48 Republicans don't cross the floor (unlikely?) in the House of Reps., how does this affect Congress' yea or nay? Don't both houses have to agree to carry legislation?

In both Houses, the majority controls the voting agenda, so it is nearly impossible to get a vote scheduled in which the minority can advance legislation that passes their respective legislature. Only legislation that has the support of the leadership of the majority in a respective house can be brought to a vote. So legislation can pass with less than 50% GOP support if there are enough Dems to support and the GOP leadership favors the bill, but there will never be legislation that passes by the minority with a handful of GOP supporters.

And yes, both houses have to pass legislation, and then it has to be signed by the President to become law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
31-01-2017, 12:19 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(30-01-2017 11:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 11:26 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Nixon fired two attorney generals because they wouldn't fire his special prosecutor.

attorneys general Yes

Yeah yeah yeah...I'm typing on my iPhone. Cut the chick some slack. Tongue


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
31-01-2017, 01:02 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 12:19 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 11:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  attorneys general Yes

Yeah yeah yeah...I'm typing on my iPhone. Cut the chick some slack. Tongue

[Image: soup-nazi.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
31-01-2017, 01:09 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 01:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-01-2017 12:19 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Yeah yeah yeah...I'm typing on my iPhone. Cut the chick some slack. Tongue

[Image: soup-nazi.jpg]

That made me giggle.

It's EK's job to amuse me, but you did well. Thumbsup


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
31-01-2017, 01:17 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2017 01:31 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 01:09 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(31-01-2017 01:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  [Image: soup-nazi.jpg]

That made me giggle.

It's EK's job to amuse me, but you did well. Thumbsup

To be fair, the Soup Nazi was literally the first thing that popped into my head when I read your post. Honestly, I'm just as amazed as you are.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
31-01-2017, 03:46 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2017 03:49 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(30-01-2017 11:28 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 11:20 PM)SYZ Wrote:  Is this frightening or what? I can't believe that in an (alleged) democracy, one individual can hold all that power. In Australia, our Prime Minister (equivalent status to Drumpf) cannot make any decision without the approval of the parliament. A bill has to be tabled—which is sometimes difficult in itself—and then voted on before any "executive"-type decision can be legislated. Sometimes this can take 12 months or more in the worst cases.

Currently, the most nominally powerful person in Australia is our Governor General—the Queen's representative here—which is a throwback to the colonial days of the British Empire. And which is the reason that when Betty pops her clogs, Australia will become a republic, and give the British fucking Royals the arse.

Anyway... Drumpf is a law unto himself apparently? Is there any way he can be reined in? What would it take to reject his decisions outright?

You do not have an Executive head as it is the Queen. Under a non-monarchy Democracy the President is in charge of the Executive branch and thus all agencies heads are appointed by the President. Your Prime Minister is the equivalent of the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader.

While the current sitting monarch is the Head of State, whose interests are represented through the Governor-General, the Executive branch of the government is headed by the Prime Minister and comprised of his or her Cabinet. The HoS and Executive offices are separated constitutionally under the monarchy framework. As such, our PM is our governmental equivalent of your El Presedante. Only ours has less absurd powers, and doesn't have to cut ribbons when a new highway is built.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
31-01-2017, 08:15 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 03:46 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 11:28 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You do not have an Executive head as it is the Queen. Under a non-monarchy Democracy the President is in charge of the Executive branch and thus all agencies heads are appointed by the President. Your Prime Minister is the equivalent of the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader.

While the current sitting monarch is the Head of State, whose interests are represented through the Governor-General, the Executive branch of the government is headed by the Prime Minister and comprised of his or her Cabinet. The HoS and Executive offices are separated constitutionally under the monarchy framework. As such, our PM is our governmental equivalent of your El Presedante. Only ours has less absurd powers, and doesn't have to cut ribbons when a new highway is built.

Australia and most of the Commonwealth countries have parliamentary systems or mongrels of them - the head of state is a figurehead with no executive power. Even the cabinet has to be selected from Members of Parliament. The separation of executive and legislative parts of government is less stark.

I think it is a more flexible system than what we have in the US, because parties can form coalitions, snap elections and others. The Prime Minister can easily be removed, without missing a beat, if it becomes apparent that he is patently insane. It would still be a bit of a problem though, if his party is dominant and 90% are patently insane too.

I have watched British parliamentary proceedings. They don't mince words. If Trump was a British Prime Minister, he would have been replaced with little ceremony within the week.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like tomilay's post
31-01-2017, 08:54 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(30-01-2017 11:58 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The controversy is way overblown. Yates was out the door as soon as Sessions is confirmed. She knew it, Trump knew it, everyone knew it. This was a short-lived protest on Yate's part, and nothing more. Pretty much any career attorney of sufficient level within the DOJ can function as an acting AG until a permanent one can be appointed. This is in legislative code, and Trump is only following what Congress has authorized the president to do when an AG position is vacated and the Senate has yet to approve a nominee. As part of the executive branch, the DOJ is expected to serve at the discretion of the President, and no president is obligated to keep an AG--acting or otherwise--that is insubordinate.

The executive order wasn't thought out in the least. It was an impulsive move from Trump and it had bad consequences for people who got stuck at airports - not to mention for others with travel plans who had no warning and have to switch gears - because it wasn't thought out. Due to the lack of proper planning, the details weren't even clear and this was part of why Yates refused to comply with it. This man is leading our country in a willy nilly fashion and when Yates decided it wasn't acceptable, Trump reacted with the knee-jerk firing. I find it completely amazing that you think this is "overblown".

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2017, 08:54 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(30-01-2017 02:44 PM)SYZ Wrote:  You're reasoning on this is reminiscent of the McCarthy isolationist viewpoint of the 1950s and is thus laughably outmoded.

... and it was idiotic then, too.

The only thing Trump has for sale is fear. He has nothing else. Every one of Trump's policy initiatives is based on fear -- fear of the outsiders, fear of losing your job, fear of China. LDH and his sort have bought into it, and for that reason, can only offer their fearful mimicry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: