Liberal Forum

Squatchman » 31 Dec 2023, 9:24 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2023, 9:24 am

  But he's too impotent to do it himself.
We get that too.

Yeah rattling peoples cages. Hey you want to shoot Americans yet. Come on guys let's shoot americans he says. You can do it. 
 
 

Bidencrimefamily » 31 Dec 2023, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2023, 9:25 am

Yeah rattling peoples cages. Hey you want to shoot Americans yet. Come on guys let's shoot americans he says. You can do it.

  Every single reep member here is one of those.
Too old to be of any real use in a fight but wants to start one in hopes that others will do their dirty work.

 

Squatchman » 31 Dec 2023, 9:30 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2023, 9:30 am

  Every single reep member here is one of those.
Too old to be of any real use in a fight but wants to start one in hopes that others will do their dirty work.

That's trumps whole game. Scare the old folks. 

Bidencrimefamily » 31 Dec 2023, 9:34 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2023, 9:34 am

That's trumps whole game. Scare the old folks.

  And con them.

 

Bidencrimefamily » 19 Dec 2023, 7:52 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023, 7:52 pm

Read the constitution if you still believe in it.

You read it you retard.Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4 The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5 The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

jerrab » 30 Dec 2023, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2023, 1:03 pm

do you think you are smarter than the supreme court?

Smarter than Colorado's supreme court. 
Even they knew they were going to get bitch slapped, that's why they stayed their own ruling immediately.

jerrab » 30 Dec 2023, 7:33 am » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2023, 7:33 am

analysis of Founding Era documents and (ii) examination of appointments practices in the Continental Congress and the First Federal Congress. Both strongly suggest the original public meaning of “officer” is much broader than modern doctrine assumes—encompassing any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty.

The Constitution itself describes officers of the United States as being appointed positions. 
Appointed by the President.

golfboy » 01 Jan 2024, 8:30 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 8:30 pm

The Constitution itself describes officers of the United States as being appointed positions. 
Appointed by the President.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4668398

 overwhelming body of historical evidence suggests that almost everyone, starting with the Constitutional Convention all the way up through at least Reconstruction, thought the constitutional definition of "officer," "officer of the United States," "officer under the United States," and everything in between, included the president. Additionally, the evidence from the 20th and 21st centuries, though less substantive, does little to alter this historical context

 
 

jerrab » 01 Jan 2024, 9:54 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 9:54 pm

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4668398

 overwhelming body of historical evidence suggests that almost everyone, starting with the Constitutional Convention all the way up through at least Reconstruction, thought the constitutional definition of "officer," "officer of the United States," "officer under the United States," and everything in between, included the president. Additionally, the evidence from the 20th and 21st centuries, though less substantive, does little to alter this historical context

So you keep claiming, but the Constitution says you're wrong. 
So will the courts.  Many of them already have. 
 
 

golfboy » 01 Jan 2024, 9:59 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 9:59 pm

So you keep claiming, but the Constitution says you're wrong. 
So will the courts.  Many of them already have.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2016/15-1251/15-1251-1.pdf

golfboy » 01 Jan 2024, 8:30 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 8:30 pm

The Constitution itself describes officers of the United States as being appointed positions. 
Appointed by the President.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4668398

If the text alone does not clearly tell us, however, then historical evidence must serve as a critical supplement. This is where tension arises between the legal doctrines of "Textualism" and "Originalism" and where this paper adds to the literature. The overwhelming body of historical evidence suggests that almost everyone, starting with the Constitutional Convention all the way up through at least Reconstruction, thought the constitutional definition of "officer," "officer of the United States," "officer under the United States," and everything in between, included the president. Additionally, the evidence from the 20th and 21st centuries, though less substantive, does little to alter this historical context.
 

golfboy » 01 Jan 2024, 8:30 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 8:30 pm

The Constitution itself describes officers of the United States as being appointed positions. 
Appointed by the President.

Who are “Officers of the United States”? Jennifer L. Mascott* 70 STANFORD LAW REVIEW (forthcoming) (February 2017 Draft) Abstract

For decades courts have believed that only officials with “significant authority” are “Officers of the United States” subject to the Constitution’s Article II Appointments Clause requirements. But this standard has proven difficult to apply to major categories of officials, leading to a circuit split this past December over whether certain administrative law judges need Article II appointments. This article challenges whether “significant authority” is even the proper standard, using two distinctive tools: (i) “corpus linguistics”-style analysis of Founding Era documents and (ii) examination of appointments practices in the Continental Congress and the First Federal Congress. Both strongly suggest the original public meaning of “officer” is much broader than modern doctrine assumes—encompassing any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty.

golfboy » 01 Jan 2024, 9:59 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 9:59 pm

So you keep claiming, but the Constitution says you're wrong. 
So will the courts.  Many of them already have.

Who are “Officers of the United States”? Jennifer L. Mascott* 70 STANFORD LAW REVIEW (forthcoming) (February 2017 Draft) Abstract


For decades courts have believed that only officials with “significant authority” are “Officers of the United States” subject to the Constitution’s Article II Appointments Clause requirements. But this standard has proven difficult to apply to major categories of officials, leading to a circuit split this past December over whether certain administrative law judges need Article II appointments. This article challenges whether “significant authority” is even the proper standard, using two distinctive tools: (i) “corpus linguistics”-style analysis of Founding Era documents and (ii) examination of appointments practices in the Continental Congress and the First Federal Congress. Both strongly suggest the original public meaning of “officer” is much broader than modern doctrine assumes—encompassing any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty.

jerrab » 01 Jan 2024, 10:11 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:11 pm

Who are “Officers of the United States”? Jennifer L. Mascott* 70 STANFORD LAW REVIEW (forthcoming) (February 2017 Draft) Abstract

For decades courts have believed that only officials with “significant authority” are “Officers of the United States” subject to the Constitution’s Article II Appointments Clause requirements. But this standard has proven difficult to apply to major categories of officials, leading to a circuit split this past December over whether certain administrative law judges need Article II appointments. This article challenges whether “significant authority” is even the proper standard, using two distinctive tools: (i) “corpus linguistics”-style analysis of Founding Era documents and (ii) examination of appointments practices in the Continental Congress and the First Federal Congress. Both strongly suggest the original public meaning of “officer” is much broader than modern doctrine assumes—encompassing any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty.

Again.  The Constituiton defines who officers are:  People appointed by the President or by Congress.

golfboy » 01 Jan 2024, 10:13 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:13 pm

Again.  The Constituiton defines who officers are:  People appointed by the President or by Congress.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/U ... 1251-1.pdf


For decades courts have believed that only officials with “significant authority” are “Officers of the United States” subject to the Constitution’s Article II Appointments Clause requirements. But this standard has proven difficult to apply to major categories of officials, leading to a circuit split this past December over whether certain administrative law judges need Article II appointments. This article challenges whether “significant authority” is even the proper standard, using two distinctive tools: (i) “corpus linguistics”-style analysis of Founding Era documents and (ii) examination of appointments practices in the Continental Congress and the First Federal Congress. Both strongly suggest the original public meaning of “officer” is much broader than modern doctrine assumes—encompassing any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty.
 

jerrab » 01 Jan 2024, 10:15 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:15 pm

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/U ... 1251-1.pdf

For decades courts have believed that only officials with “significant authority” are “Officers of the United States” subject to the Constitution’s Article II Appointments Clause requirements. But this standard has proven difficult to apply to major categories of officials, leading to a circuit split this past December over whether certain administrative law judges need Article II appointments. This article challenges whether “significant authority” is even the proper standard, using two distinctive tools: (i) “corpus linguistics”-style analysis of Founding Era documents and (ii) examination of appointments practices in the Continental Congress and the First Federal Congress. Both strongly suggest the original public meaning of “officer” is much broader than modern doctrine assumes—encompassing any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty.

Why do you keep repeating yourself when the Constitution says you're wrong?

golfboy » 01 Jan 2024, 10:16 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:16 pm

Why do you keep repeating yourself when the Constitution says you're wrong?

do you really really think you are smarter than the supreme court?

jerrab » 01 Jan 2024, 10:27 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:27 pm

do you really really think you are smarter than the supreme court?

This went to a court of 7 VERY liberal judges.  It was a 4/3 decision. 
How do you think that's going to hold up in front of an appeals court, much less a 6/3 Conservative court?
 

golfboy » 01 Jan 2024, 10:56 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:56 pm

This went to a court of 7 VERY liberal judges.  It was a 4/3 decision. 
How do you think that's going to hold up in front of an appeals court, much less a 6/3 Conservative court?

nope, they went by the definition.


-------------------------------------------------------

This evidence suggests that the most likely “original public meaning” of “officer” is one whom the government entrusts with ongoing responsibility to perform a statutory duty of any level of importance. If a statute authorizes the federal government to complete a particular task or exercise a particular power, the individual who maintains ongoing responsibility for the task is an “officer

 

jerrab » 01 Jan 2024, 10:27 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:27 pm

do you really really think you are smarter than the supreme court?

he is as dumb as a box of rocks.

What HE thinks the Constitution says and what SCOTUS may say are not synonymous.

Ask him how many votes it takes to pass a bill in the US Senate when all senators are present and voting!  lol