Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SMS" data-source="post: 2397691" data-attributes="member: 42"><p>Oh I get you. It's a good discussion.</p><p></p><p>I believe they got around the "appropiation/tax bills need to originate in the House" provision because the original shell of the legislation did originate in the House....it came out looking nothing like the original legislation but it still originated there.</p><p></p><p>SCOTUS can strike down segments of legislation but I don't think there is any precedent for them strip a particular phrase. In this case the legislation is full of language that gives the Secretary great latitude...they did not rule on that authority and I don't think anyone who challenged the law in court brought that authority into question.</p><p></p><p>So that's how we got left with this mess and that's how Barry's EOs are "Constitutional", IMHO...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SMS, post: 2397691, member: 42"] Oh I get you. It's a good discussion. I believe they got around the "appropiation/tax bills need to originate in the House" provision because the original shell of the legislation did originate in the House....it came out looking nothing like the original legislation but it still originated there. SCOTUS can strike down segments of legislation but I don't think there is any precedent for them strip a particular phrase. In this case the legislation is full of language that gives the Secretary great latitude...they did not rule on that authority and I don't think anyone who challenged the law in court brought that authority into question. So that's how we got left with this mess and that's how Barry's EOs are "Constitutional", IMHO... [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
