I have asked this here before: What happens (details) if we have a Constitutional Crisis? If the Administration manages to get Mueller removed what are the next steps in our government? I realize that this is speculation, but the term (Const. Crisis) has been bandied about for the last ten months or more. Was the Watergate event a C.C.?
The investigation would continue as it did in Watergate the Donald cannot avoid his destiny.
I have asked this here before: What happens (details) if we have a Constitutional Crisis? If the Administration manages to get Mueller removed what are the next steps in our government? I realize that this is speculation, but the term (Const. Crisis) has been bandied about for the last ten months or more. Was the Watergate event a C.C.?
This guy thinks we are in a constitution crisis
Thanks dumb uninformed gop voters
A political crisis. Not a constitutional one. He has the authority to fire Mueller and if the Congress disagrees and believes he's obstructed the investigation they have a Constitutional remedy - impeachment. The fact that they might not choose to pursue that remedy doesn't make it a Constitutional crisis.
If the congress is in on the scam, then its a crisis.
If the congress is in on the scam, then its a crisis.
Hate to burst your bubble but no it isn’t. At least not a Constitutional one.
And how would you prove that “Congress is in on the scam”? Is the fact that it doesn’t reach your preferred outcome enough?
Not mutually exclusive, so either or both, and correct on both, or one, or the other.
From where I sit, quite a few in Congress seem to BE "in on the scam" at some level or other but it remains to be seen if they too have broken any laws.
Ever hear of the act of 1871?. Congress has been a scam since then.
The fact that they are not acting on the many constitutional or law violations of trump and allowing the environmental damages is a government destruction of unalienable rights.
What act of 1871?
Look I understand what you’re saying but the simple fact is that Congress gets to decide whether a crime is impeachable or not. You may not like the outcome but the system is working as designed.
Hmmm, perhaps you are not yet quite educated enough to reasonably undertake this discussion if you do not know about this.
Corp. U.S. - the Columbia Organic Act of 1871
The following shows that congress is in violation of the law, their oaths and the constitution, and has been that way since 1911
A video explaining a search of the congressional record by Bill Walker.
Walker - YouTube
This document has links to the letter sent to the clerk of congress and other aspects related.
http://www.foavc.org/reference/file47.pdf
Such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?
Because of that letter, the house finally adopts rule to count states applications for Article V.
https://www.nolanchart.com/article1...eks-official-congressional-count-on-apps-html
However, congress refused to start counting applications occuring before the letter. The speakers were sued.
http://www.foavc.org/reference/doc4.pdf
That suit, of course was denied. Government is deeply unlawful. These .pdf's by Bill Walker explain the developing status.
http://www.foavc.org/reference/file67.pdf
http://www.foavc.org/reference/file70.pdf
http://www.foavc.org/reference/file71.pdf
http://www.foavc.org/reference/file73.pdf
http://www.foavc.org/reference/file74.pdf
http://www.foavc.org/reference/file75.pdf
National Archives and Records Administration Attempts Termination of Article V Convention
http://www.foavc.org/reference/file77.pdf
http://www.foavc.org/reference/file78.pdf
It'd depend on the reason for firing him. See 28 CFR §600.7(d):
(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.
My level of education - both classroom and real world - is fine.
It didn't create a corportion in the sense used in the linked article,
And what does that have to do with Congress and impeachment in any case? Are you going to seriously argue that Congress hasn't had any authority for the past 150 years?
If the congress is in on the scam, then its a crisis.
(ed: edited to meet DP post length restrictions)
THE ACT OF 1871
On February 21, 1871, the Forty-First Congress–also known as the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62–passed the Act of 1871: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” Without constitutional authority, Congress created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is literally a piece of land that extends out for only 10 miles. But why?
After the Civil War our nation was essentially bankrupt, and America was very vulnerable to European interests. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a strategic maneuver created by the international bankers to gain a stronghold on America. Knowing that the nation was in financial trouble, Congress made a deal with the Rothschild’s of London thereby incurring a debt. As we know banks do not lend money unless it is in their best interest, so the Crown of London created way to gain control of the United States. Thus the Act of 1871 was passed, and THE UNITED STATES corporation was born.
Note the capitalization; this is very important. Now owned by foreign interests, this corporation obliterated the original version of the Constitution with the Act of 1871. Our beloved Constitution was defaced as the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to the word “of”. The original Constitution was written in this manner: “The Constitution for the united states of America” is now changed to: “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”... a corporate constitution. This constitution operates in an economic capacity, and has been used as a tool to fool the People into thinking that it is the same Constitution created by our Founding Fathers. The capitalization of names on legal documents may seem minor, yet have major impacts on each generation born in this country. What the Congress did was create a constitution for the corporate government of the District of Columbia, and not that of America. This corporate constitution serves outside of the original Constitution. It does not benefit the Republic nor its people, yet serves only to benefit the corporation. Rather than having inalienable rights guaranteed under the original Constitution, we now have ‘privileges’.[/INDENT]
I have asked this here before: What happens (details) if we have a Constitutional Crisis? If the Administration manages to get Mueller removed what are the next steps in our government? I realize that this is speculation, but the term (Const. Crisis) has been bandied about for the last ten months or more. Was the Watergate event a C.C.?
Would it be un-Constitutional to fire Mueller? Not smart, maybe. But not legal?
The Act of 1871 - which I actually took the time to read btw - is a completely legitimate exercise of Congress' powers see Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress was granted control over the district. There is no limitation on that control such that Congress cannot put in place a administrative apparatus to actually run the city. In fact not doing so would be stupid especially given the rapid population growth and the fact that district was lacking things like paved roads. It did not turn the United States into some corporate entity that foreign bankers bought with loans. Nor did it wipe out the US Constitution. This is frankly bat **** crazy talk.
On the Article V stuff. I read the complaint and most of the motions. Some guy claims that since 35 states have separately asked Congress for a Constitutional convention since 1910 Congress is obligated to call one under Article V of the Constitution. Mitch Mcconnell disagrees. A court will eventially decide.
How does any of this make Congress "unlawful" in your words. It doesn't.
It is the textbook definition of obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is a high crime. The constitution states that the president is to be impeached for such offenses.
In truth, he is already guilty of multiple counts of obstruction of justice that would have gotten President Obama impeached by Republicans months ago, but they are willfully allowing a criminal president to continue because they know their base doesn't care so long as he's a Republican.
Your misrepresentations amount to treason against the constitution when you fail to mention NOT COUNTING APPLICATIONS for an Article V and instead only refer to the unlawful act of refusing to call the convention the constitution calls for.
The epeal of net neutrality is another. Giving the internet in 1994 called the usenet to commerce (dot com) is another.
Mentioning McConnel as an authority seals the case. Done with you traitor.
I guess you didn't read the lawsuit you referenced. You really should read things before you reference them. It'd go a long way towards keeping you from looking really foolish. McConnell and Boehner (later replaced by Ryan) are the ones being sued. Not the Congress. Not the United States. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
What does "COUNTING APPLICATIONS" have to do with anything? So far the only people who apparently think that states asking for a Constitutional Convention in 1910 count towards a convention in 2018 are the people who filed the suit. No one else apparently thinks that way.
The usenet was never the internet. It's a facility that uses the internet.
Paul Ryan is not being sued. Qaulified immunity preempts that from happening. Ryan could be sued under his capacity, but not personally.
I guess you didn't read the lawsuit you referenced. You really should read things before you reference them. It'd go a long way towards keeping you from looking really foolish. McConnell and Boehner (later replaced by Ryan) are the ones being sued. Not the Congress. Not the United States. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
What does "COUNTING APPLICATIONS" have to do with anything? So far the only people who apparently think that states asking for a Constitutional Convention in 1910 count towards a convention in 2018 are the people who filed the suit. No one else apparently thinks that way.
The usenet was never the internet. It's a facility that uses the internet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?