It darkly amusing and yet pathetic that the wanna-be authoritarians never give up on that rhetoric. Yeah, keep that shit up, I'm sure that's going to make people want you to be in power.
Seriously. We on the right are always accused of being the fascists but it's always amusing the little-dick-leftists are the ones talking about overthrowing people and bringing people who've done nothing illegal to justice. Code for firing squad in the streets.
It's amazing how you fit your head all the way up your ass like that, and how @Captain X manages to fit his right there beside you. I'm impressed. You should go on tour.
It is a very simple proposition. Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power. If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way. No one knows this better than high-ranking officials of the Department of Justice. That is why President Trump was right to fire Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Over the weekend, President Trump issued an executive order temporarily restricting the admission into the United States of aliens from various Muslim-majority countries, as well as aliens from Syria and elsewhere who are claiming refugee status. Naturally, this has triggered protests by Democrats and the Left. They erroneously claim that Trump’s executive order violates the Constitution, statutory law, American tradition, and human decency. For inexplicable reasons, the new president left Yates in place to run the Justice Department in anticipation of the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions. A faithful Obama-appointed progressive, Yates obviously knew which way the political wind was blowing in her tribe. Like most Democrats, Yates objects to the president’s executive order. Fair enough. But she is not a political operative, she was a Justice Department official — the highest such official. If her opposition to the president’s policy was as deeply held as she says, her choice was clear: enforce the president’s policy or quit. Instead, she chose insubordination: Knowing she would be out the moment Senator Sessions is confirmed, she announced on Monday night that the Justice Department would not enforce the president’s order. She did not issue this statement on the grounds that the order is illegal. She declined to take a definitive position on that question. She rested her decision, rather, on her disagreement with the justice of the order. Now, she’ll be a left-wing hero, influential beyond her heretofore status as a nameless bureaucrat. But she had to go. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444418/why-sally-yates-was-fired-insubordination
If he continues like that, we'll see the 25th Amendment invoked rather sooner than later. IMHO there is no time for the political fight that is an impeachment.
I have no authoritarian leanings, and for your insult I send you to the gulag. Less corn. Less corn is always the solution.
On what grounds? Also it's clear you didn't read the 25th Amendment carefully if you think there wouldn't be a political fight like there would be in an impeachment. The decisions to remove the President under the 25th Amendment ultimately comes down to a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate. (unless the President doesn't contest the notification from the Vice-President) In fact in some ways impeachment while taking longer would actually be easier vote wise. The House simply needs a simple majority for the impeachment charges and the only the Senate would need to a vote 2/3 majority for removal. Clinton was impeached by the House on two charges and the votes were 228–206 and 221–212. Two other charges failed. The Senate than did not convict him and remove him from office failing to get 2/3rds of the Senate. Short of Trump having a stroke how do you propose to convince Vice-President Pence and a majority of the cabinet to declare Trump unfit for office AND then have enough Republicans in the House and Senate (along with enough Democrats) to vote to remove Trump?
Not inexplicable. Certain types of surveillance require authorization by a Senate approved member of AG staff. She was the only Senate approved member left, staying on until Sessions was confirmed so that our Homeland Security didn't have a gap.
How is it dumb Ancalagon? She has an obligation to carry out Trump's policy as he is the head of the executive branch. If she disagrees with his policy then isn't it incumbent upon her to say, "I can not in good conscious do this and therefore resign"? Instead she actively ordered those under her to ignore his Executive Order.
Those are all in response to idiots like you trying to cheat Hillary into being POTUS as the time. In effect you little-dick-leftists were at the time trying to overthrow Trump before he even got elected by the Electors.
If she felt the order was illegal her option was simple: resign. You do not order the Federal Government to ignore the President. Of course the order isn't illegal. You don't like the order but that's just because you're a little-dick-leftist.
In response to completely legal actions that were being proposed as the time. Who's got the little dick now?
So if Obama had tried taking all the guns away and implementing Sharia law, you'd have said the proper response for government employees would have been to resign? Just quit and go home and wait for everything to blow over? You're a fucking joke.
Still trying to cheat Hillary into the White House. Little-Dick-leftists are going to have a long four years. If anything Wordforge should send a thank you letter to Trump. He's got all you LDL types fired up that it seems the board is alive and hopping.
The stupidity is amazing sometimes. Do you LDL people ever stop and think? If Obama had tried to take all guns away and implement Sharia law then Vice-President Biden along with a majority of the cabinet would have probably moved under the 25th Amendment to remove Obama on mental health grounds. If they didn't Obama would have probably been impeached. The Democrats as dumb as they are would not allow Obama to do such a thing. A better example you could have used could have been when Obama ended the Wet-foot Dry-foot policy regarding Cubans. Even though it was at the tail end of his presidency if DOJ Attorney General Lynch had said she would not enforce the new policy and instructed those underneath her to not defend the new policy then President Obama would have been well within his rights to fire her. If Attorney General Lynch did not agree with the policy she has to either carry it out or resign. She does not have the right to over-ride presidential policy.
Shame that Sessions himself disagrees with you. http://theweek.com/speedreads/67701...-just-fired-resist-presidents-unlawful-orders
Absolutely the Attorney General has an obligation to say no if they feel something is wrong or illegal. But if the President says do it than they either do it or they resign. Under no circumstances does the Attorney General (or any other cabinet member) have the right to over-ride presidential policy. That is the job of the Congress. If POTUS oversteps than it is up to the legislative and judicial branch of government to reign him in. President Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson and the Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Both refused and both resigned on the spot. They didn't order the DOJ to ignore President Nixon. They resigned. And we see after this happened the courts stepped in and said President Nixon firing Cox was illegal under the law and than Congress started introducing numerous resolutions of impeachment. Nixon was forced to allow a new special prosecutor. See how that works? You can say no to the President if you think the President is doing something illegal or wrong but not illegal. You don't have the right to use the agency you head against him. So Sessions doesn't disagree with me. You're not going to find Sessions supporting the right of a cabinet official to overrule the President of the United States. You tell the President what he is doing is wrong/illegal and than you resign. You go to Congress and tell them. It's their job to deal with it if the President is committing impeachable offenses. The article you picked is obviously cherry-picking Sessions.
I think the right tends to be more authoritarian and has more people in its ranks ready to ditch the rule of law for the mob. That said, your point about the left is valid --- in the same relative terms. (Which candidate in the election had people chanting "Lock her up!!!") While fewer people on the left have that fascist bent, some do. (Stalin, Mao, whoever.) We on the left have to be careful about this. No. Standard practice in a hand-over. Who did you expect Obama to appoint, David Duke? She didn't think it was legal. Its legality is a Huge Question. Why resign before you get fired? You might squeeze a little bit more influence out of your stay.
