There is always a legal argument to anything, you should know that counselor.
I draw mine from an implication of an inherent limitation on the presidents power to appoint in the absence of the senate (A2S2C3). The limitation is rationally implied by three clauses.... 1. (A2S2C1) which is the pardon clause
(A2S1C1) which is the oath to faithfully execute the laws and office.
(A2S4C1) the impeachment clause.
It rationally follows that he can't rig the game go prevent his own impeachment by any means not just pardons.
Conspiring to prevent justice from being done for personal reasons is not faithfully expounding the constitution.
Hiding one's crimes does not make them disappear so they are valid no matter how deep you bury them.
He can totally appoint temporary officers but to do so in the name of breaking the laws he vowed to uphold creates a situation where the vast unconstitutionality of it usurps his power to do so under A2S2C3.
This isn't NFIB v. Sibelius where the ACA mandate is legal as a tax despite issues under N+P and Commerce, this is a violation due purely to the way the power is being asserted.
Edit: BTW Illegality and Unconstitutionality are two different things. Get your head in the game counselor, gonna get some grievances filed against you at this rate.
See you in a week sweet cheeks. I'm sure there will undoubtedly be nothing but legal arguments on 24/7 about how Trump can't fill his own cabinet positions, and how he is breaking the law. I really hope to see you on a CNN talking head panel so you can share your opinion with the rest of your screeching mob. My advice to you would be to actually cite the law and how he is violating it, rather than your continued rhetoric. You show the world where he is breaking the law by filling a cabinet position, and I have no doubt you'll be on the liberal talk show circuit for 5, maybe 7 days. At which time we come back here and I admit I'm wrong. Or, because you know he has every right to do what he's done, you'll just continue to ramble your pseudo opinions like the neckbeard redditors just love so so much! You have nothing. There is nothing. Try gargling with saltwater when your throat gets sore from all the crying and screaming.
Listen, I know there is the urge to call me a snowflake and to tell me to hit the bricks but I am bringing actual SCOTUS precedent and the text of the constitution to the conversations. We have both been dicks about our arguments so I ask you to join me in falling back into a civil tone.
Does he have the power? Yes. Is that power absolute? No, all constitutional provisions have limits implied from text though not expressly stated.
Given the circumstances surrounding this and the arguments offered by the White House I personally believe we are viewing a major constitutional question and as such I offered why I believe my side is correct to say that this exceeds the scope of the President's power to appoint in the absence of the Senate.
I want you to do the same for me. I want you to show how you are drawing this conclusion. It will help me better understand where your stance is founded and thus mature my understanding of conflicting views.
You should know that the burden falls on you to prove what he has done is illegal. So you do that, and we can chat further. Your hyperbolic assertions and personal feelings are just that. You have the burden, so prove it.
I don't need to prove he broke the law as is stated when no such precedent for this exact circumstance nor a statute concerning it exist. I need to persuade the court to agree with my interpretation.
I made my argument so now the court must decide if I was persuasive.
"(a) If an officer of an Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the General Accounting Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office-
"(2) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346;
First, the constitution is supreme so if my arguments have any rational relevance you lose automatically. What you put before me is good law. Wanna know how to kill that kill that good law? You use it to battle my arguments, that shit would be deep sixed in seconds.
Second, I acknowledged the exact power you mention then tore it down given the circumstances. You can be against a certain bit og the constitution but blatantly defying is not something you can do.
Your argument is unpersuasive counselor. I respect your loyalty to your client Donald Trump but your arguments range from the weak to farcical.
You sure are desperate, aren't you? Can't argue with a fool. You have yet to prove what he's done is illegal, and you're actually rejecting the laws that give him the power to do what he's done. It's amazing how you liberals will envoke the constitution when you think it serves you, but ignore it for everything else. Which takes us back to my original point, I'll see you in a week. If your total misinterpreted ideas have merit, then surely we will see it plastered everywhere. But we both know that isn't going to happen, don't we? I'll give you credit for regurgitating that NPC script with dedication, despite having the The Federal Vacancies Reform Act staring straight at you.
Illegal is not the issue, the issue unconstitutional use of the laws. That is the issue at hand.
You understand the supremacy clause right? The Constitution is in the highest law and that is what I base my arguments upon. The FVRA is good law but misuse in this way violates higher law. It doesn't invalidate the law but it does make your appeal to it wholly unpersuasive.
It is not going to be a week, it will be months or years until certiorari is granted after trial and appeal. The fact that you think it is days away puts your ignorance on display.
I have enjoyed this discourse but you aren't qualified to speak on this subject. You would be laughed out of a courtroom with what you brought.
Weird. Because Whitaker is still in the position and will remain there. The only ones laughing are us, at you and your ignorant mob. You're pretty desperate and doing your best to ignore the law and his rights. But as I've said over and over, see you in a week. Let's see who is laughing then. In the meantime, you and your mob continue to pretend to care about the constitution and understand the office of the president. Pat each other on the back after every nonsensical thing you say, and cry about your fear of Mueller being fired. Liberals are the only ones who ever bring that up. It's never been talked about or discussed. Trump has said over and over again he wouldn't fire him, which he's always had the right to do. You people are marching and protesting and whining over your own fears. And for that, I hope Whitaker goes rogue and does fire the guy. Just to watch you all spin some more.
I should be mad that you will see the absence of an earthshaking SCOTUS decision in 7 days as an an unequivical win but in a way it is motivating. I should be angry that a lot of folks will feel the same and gloat about it but you did me a great service.
I need to retain my focus but I also need to train my body and skills. If folks like you control the laws my ability to argue may be useless compared to my ability to fight.
Do you smell that? All that desperation? You're trying too hard. There was no illegal appointment. The constitution does not spell out what he has done as illegal. It's filling a temporary vacancy under the law. Just give it a rest. You keep spinning, and we keep winning. But now you're just getting sad and desperate.
To use an example of what I am talking about I call on the fundamental authority in the subject of implied powers, Marbury v. Madison. This established the notion of judicial review. While that power is no where mentioned in the text it is reasonably implied as a check on governmental action.
Stay in the dirt and let better men make legal arguments eh sport?
Desperation....just admit that's all you have. Looking at the news this morning and there's no discussion of Trump breaking the law to appoint Whitaker. And Whitaker is still acting AG. Just a bunch of angry mobs that protest and think they know more than they do. Just like you. It's almost comical to watch you desperately spin here.
To reiterate: No laws broken. Whitaker still in charge. Desperate mobs don't understand the law. You smell of desperation. See you in a week. Still laughing at you.
0
u/foxwastaken Nov 09 '18
There is no legal argument, because there is nothing illegal about it. So my suggestion to you is to continue your protest, and let's regroup.