3 hours ago3 hr 11 hours ago, DBW said:Illegal fireworks.See the reason we use coast guard is because there are laws, they need to board and identify the people on the boats when they stop them. Not just kill people And try to identify remains later. International laws exist for a reason and your boy is committing cold blooded murder. Think about that for a second and how would you explain that you’re ok with it to your kids. It’s a Sick, demented act.You are talking to the most edgy little guy around though!
3 hours ago3 hr 8 hours ago, vikas83 said:You should really consider being less poor.I know that's your bit but it's also my point. How many people in here actually were hot and bothered over the price of eggs? But there's pages upon pages of bishing about it.
2 hours ago2 hr 35 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:I know that's your bit but it's also my point. How many people in here actually were hot and bothered over the price of eggs? But there's pages upon pages of bishing about it.eggs were just a focal point of contention on a broader issue. everything is higher.
2 hours ago2 hr 1 hour ago, DBW said:Yeah I mean doesn’t the fact that he’s been elected to two terms therefore make him constitutionally ineligible to be elected again? That’s the two term limit. So he’s not eligible to be president and therefore cannot be elected as VP and take over. That seems pretty clear to me and this whole discussion is like a cows opinion, it’s moo.This post highlights the distinction that you’re missing in Vikas’ point. The constitution establishes 2 sets of criteria - 1 to hold the office of president and 1 to be elected as president. The only requirement for being elected as vice president is that a person meet the criteria for holding the office of president. And if the vice president meets that criteria, there is nothing to prevent them from taking over as president since they would not be elected to that position. So the 2nd set of criteria is irrelevant. I don’t know the details of the constitution, but I haven’t seen any argument or reference to language in the constitution that would refute Vikas’ point. Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court i think it is likely that they would rule in favor of the law as written rather than in the spirit or intent of the laws to appease Dear Leader.
1 hour ago1 hr 12 hours ago, DBW said:Speedboats that would take 3 days running non stop at 70mph and would require 2 or more refuels to reach the US from even the closest point in Venezuela. The boats can’t carry enough fuel For that along with the drugs and people. It’s all a show.No use brother, they will pass the daily loyalty test with flying colors. Dehumanizing murder and having them clap at these atrocities is part of the long game. They are all in.
1 hour ago1 hr 36 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:eggs were just a focal point of contention on a broader issue. everything is higher.Yeah but nice crap is way, way higher but the media acts like prudes and doesn't talk about that. I have a specialty market a block away walk in and grab some some pricey but nice stuff, obviously a lot of the stuff is from Europe and it all skyrocketed.
1 hour ago1 hr The thing with the constitution is that it’s not wordy. So there’s a whole lot of interpretation that needs to be done. When the amendment was drafted and passed, what was the intent?Was the intent to be narrowly focused on an election, or was it broader.
35 minutes ago35 min 4 hours ago, Bill said:I think this is one of those letter of the law vs. spirit of the law things.2 hours ago, DBW said:Yeah I mean doesn’t the fact that he’s been elected to two terms therefore make him constitutionally ineligible to be elected again? That’s the two term limit. So he’s not eligible to be president and therefore cannot be elected as VP and take over. That seems pretty clear to me and this whole discussion is like a cows opinion, it’s moo.The problem is when dealing with the law, intent or spirit of the law only comes into play when there is ambiguity in the language. There is none here. The 22nd Amendment clearly says "elected," while the 12th refers to Constitutional eligibility, which at the time the Amendment was passed, was being 35 and a natural born citizen. If the intent was to say no person may serve as President for more than 10 years, then the drafters of the 22nd should have said that.At the end of the day, the Constitution is a contract and this is how contract law works. It's black and white -- he can't be elected, but he CAN serve. What if Obama was speaker - he would be 3rd in line and would assume the Presidency if both the President and VP resigned/died. And there's no prohibition on who can be speaker. So make Trump speaker, run Vance/Don Jr., and then they both resign. Boom - Trump's the President again.The issue is the Constitution assumes a basic decency level among elected officials. They never considered someone who wouldn't have that.
34 minutes ago34 min 1 hour ago, Bill said:The thing with the constitution is that it’s not wordy. So there’s a whole lot of interpretation that needs to be done.When the amendment was drafted and passed, what was the intent?Was the intent to be narrowly focused on an election, or was it broader.Look at THIS court and how they rule -- they do not infer intent in the words, but are textualists.This will be 6-3 in Trump's favor.
Create an account or sign in to comment