Help
FORUMS › General Discussions › Politics › The 2012 Presidential Debates
TOPIC: The_2012_Presidential_Debates
« Prev  1 ...  2.1  3.1  4.1  5.1  6.1  7.1  8.1  9.1  10.1  11.1  ... 28  Next »
62 to 71 of 272
User Details are only visible to members.
"I asked you three times for those "sources" you claim to have cited."

I asked you 27 times for a source on the Spending Power of the President. I guess you have selective memory. You just made a weasel spin out of it after a week or so.

I asked TBR to explain his comment and he still hasn't. The genius that you are simply 'lol'd' his reply.

Why would I respond to you any different than you two???

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(18745 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"I know more about the Constitution and the Supreme Court than you'll ever know about anything."

If you really want me to bump those threads again where you made a fool of yourself discussing the Everson case, I can do so. (Maybe by now you have figured out that five justices join in something called the majority opinion, and the others write this thing called the dissent).

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(13316 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Go flirt in the open forum with married women you'll probably never meet. It's about the only thing I see that you're good at."

And once again, when you see that your bullshit is being called out on the merits (or lack), you resort to the ad hominems. Usually a pretty good sign of surrender.

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(13316 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
That Stith article you cut and pasted is copied below. It doesn't say anything about Congress being able to spend money without either a Presidential approval or a veto override. I can't understand how you dream this shit up, and then act as if you know what you're talking about.

============ Another good read. Kate Stith, Yale Law school

"In view of the significance of Congress' power of the purse, it is surprising that there has been so little scholarly exploration of its contours. In this Article, Professor Stith draws upon constitutional structure, history, and practice to develop a general theory of Congress' appropriations power. She concludes that the appropriations clause of the Constitution imposes an obligation upon Congress as well as a limitation upon the executive branch: The Executive may not raise or spend funds not appropriated by explicit legislative action, and Congress has a constitutional duty to limit the amount and duration of each grant of spending authority. Professor Stith examines forms of spending authority that are constitutionally troubling, especially gift authority, through which Congress permits federal agencies to receive and spend private contributions without further legislative review. Other types of "backdoor" spending authority, including statutory entitlements and revolving funds, may also be inconsistent with Congress' duty to exercise control over the size and duration of appropriations. Finally, Professor Stith proposes that nonjudicial institutions such as the General Accounting Office play a larger role in enforcing and vindicating Congress' power of the purse.

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(13316 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
You gave no source that even remotely supported anything you said. Here is what you posted, the first part quoting me:

"Nothing gets spent without either a Presidential signature or the exceedingly rare veto override. "

I've posted legitimate sources that proves this is false.

=========================== I asked you three times for those "sources" you claim to have cited. You finally identified some article by a Yalie named Stith, and said you were too tired to look further. I went back and read your cut and paste of the Stith article; it said nothing in support of your claims that Congress can force spending without either a President's approval or overriding his veto.

You are full of shit on this one.

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(13316 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"I don't claim to understand everything"

Really now...

When did that happen?

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(20576 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
TBR- It seems to me that you think I'm somehow trying to justify bad behavior. I don't see it.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(18745 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"You keep telling everyone how smart you are...I damn near drew you a picture..."

I don't claim to understand everything, especially liberal-ese. Spell it out for me.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(18745 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I know more about the Constitution and the Supreme Court than you'll ever know about anything.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(18745 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
You keep telling everyone how smart you are...

I damn near drew you a picture...

What more do you want?

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(20576 posts)
« Prev  1 ...  2.1  3.1  4.1  5.1  6.1  7.1  8.1  9.1  10.1  11.1  ... 28  Next »
62 to 71 of 272
TOPIC: The 2012 Presidential Debates
This site does not contain sexually explicit images as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2256.
Accordingly, neither this site nor the contents contained herein are covered by the record-keeping provisions of 18 USC 2257(a)-(c).
Disclaimer: This website contains adult material. You must be over 18 to enter or 21 where applicable by law.
All Members are over 18 years of age.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
 
Copyright © 1998-2016 DashBoardHosting, LLC. All Rights Reserved.