M
Maximus1
Guest
Yes that was quite a political concession to working constituents when they drafted that law.
Opinion: Trump turns the presidency into a dictatorship
- Thread starter LeafByNiggle
- Start date
- Status
M
Maximus1
Guest
Yesterday’s good work began in the usual way. All about him. His victimhood. A segment of time so he could lash out on TV. AND TO tell us the 10th Amendment has been supplanted by the crown. Not legally perhaps, but through the power to cut a dissenting governor’s state off. Really it’s people. This was Trump’s arrow in his royal quiver
X
Xystus
Guest
Sadly, the 10th Amendment has been effectively dead for a long time. Way before the current president.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Actually it is, because there is liability for not telling the truth. If the employer has fired the employee without adequate reason, the employee’s unemployment compensation case is enhanced.
D
Donkey
Guest
On the other hand, it is a good move on President Trumps part to assert his Presidential title so that conversations like this surface. This allows the American public to fully understand the distinction between Presidential and State/governor power at this time. In essence, President Trump is saying that he is still here as president. Governors grouping together with self-made plans also surface…and rightly so.
It is all correct.
It is all correct.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Wow, so much here to unpack.
“That is right! President is title given to those in authority.”.
No, the title of President is given to the person elected President.
“Nearly half of this country has an issue with authority. Psychology has much to say about people like that.”
I looked for some sort of study that would prove this, but could not. So, please provide.
Okay, that’s your opinion. I disagree .
Ah, now I get it. To prop up the President, you have to denigrate those people that are truthfully reporting his words. Just like your guy, who personally insults and denigrates reporters who ask him perfectly reasonable questions that he has no answer to.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
Gerald Walpin oversaw Americorps. Obama suspended him in 2009 after ethics complaints and a unanimous letter from the Americorps board asking him to be replaced. Walpin sued over the firing and lost.
Neil Barofsky was not dismissed by Obama, he resigned in 2011.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
I don’t know why you think the 10th Amendment is dead. It still does not mean it is now OK to trample it.
M
Maximus1
Guest
I don’t know how people can suggest other people have a double standard when your examples are so very different.
The office of IG was created to be a watchdog. It was set up intending to oversee the system involving whistleblowers.
They are not JUST Federal workers. Like any other " FEDERAL WORKER".
And the examples you gave are nothing like them.
The IG keeps an eye on the president and everyone else in their jurisdiction.
So when that “Federal Worker” is fired, the question is why. The statute itself recognises that Trump, or any president, is presumed to have a self interest of no oversight if he gets rid of, or places a sycophant at the position.
The statute itself presumes America is harmed unless there is a real issue not having to do with self interest.
An IG is not there to be loyal to Trump but ONLY the Constitution.
Firing the guy who is there to make sure 2 TRILLION dollars is spent right protects the tax payer. Firing him creates the scenario of," now I can spend it however I like nobody is watching."
PS I didn’t intend to say you did this as your post makes clear you do not.
The office of IG was created to be a watchdog. It was set up intending to oversee the system involving whistleblowers.
They are not JUST Federal workers. Like any other " FEDERAL WORKER".
And the examples you gave are nothing like them.
The IG keeps an eye on the president and everyone else in their jurisdiction.
So when that “Federal Worker” is fired, the question is why. The statute itself recognises that Trump, or any president, is presumed to have a self interest of no oversight if he gets rid of, or places a sycophant at the position.
The statute itself presumes America is harmed unless there is a real issue not having to do with self interest.
An IG is not there to be loyal to Trump but ONLY the Constitution.
Firing the guy who is there to make sure 2 TRILLION dollars is spent right protects the tax payer. Firing him creates the scenario of," now I can spend it however I like nobody is watching."
PS I didn’t intend to say you did this as your post makes clear you do not.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Same situation and same opinion that’s been going on for almost 4 years now. Nothing new to see here.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
How can you prove that? @LeafByNiggle
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
I mean, we’ve got plenty of examples right here in this forum.
Fringe conservative media making up numbers:
Fringe conservative media lying about what the Hyde amendment says (multiple times):
Fringe conservative media lying after getting called out by fact checkers for lying:
Last edited:
Good. So the president is permitted to fire an IG.
I am all in favor of re-establishing it. Let’s start with making sure the general government only exercises powers delegated to it in Article 1, Section 8.Maximus1:
Sadly, the 10th Amendment has been effectively dead for a long time. Way before the current president.
That said, I almost fell out of my chair watching progressive DNC media reporters referencing it.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Whether or not it is permitted, it is not appropriate to fire the IG who has oversight over your actions. Anyone knows that it doesn’t smell right.JapaneseKappa:
Good. So the president is permitted to fire an IG.
M
Maximus1
Guest
This firing of 2 IGs could not have happened 3 years ago.
M
Maximus1
Guest
The IG Statutory Amendment in 2008 added provisions so an IG could not be fired absent good grounds related to job performance, not loyalty.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Scalia wrote an opinion that controls prevention of withholding block grant money in sanctuary city cases.
Last edited:
I’ve provided instances where the previous president did exactly the same. He has the power to have his people work for him. Just like his predecessors.
What is the constitutional basis for block grants to begin with? There isn’t any, be even Jack Kemp was a big supporter of them.
Why? I’d speculate that progressive courts had already imagined a constitutional mandate for the general government spending taxpayer money that way.
If that is the case, Scalia may have ruled based on precedent.
- Status