It wasn't engaging in conversation, it was poor taste,What was offensive or deliberately provocative about that post?
Lighten up. @wing2000 had a good comeback, he can handle itIt wasn't engaging in conversation, it was poor taste,
Are you really genuinely asking people here in this thread for an actual address to send your check to?
Your post was designed to spark a reaction. To troll the "libs". It is just an example of MAGA trolling that has become prevalent. Rather then to engage in honest and considered discussion.
It's a challenge. I know we should be having fun too, but it gets really hard to have engaging conversations, it's hard to tell if people are being silly, trolling or are being dead serious.Lighten up. @wing2000 had a good comeback, he can handle it
Wrong. All three branches are co-equal and check each other. For instance, the Executive Branch can check congress via vetoes and by use of Executive privilege. The Executive Branch checks the Judicial branch via court appointments.Not at all. Congress has oversight power of the executive branch. The executive branch has no authority to check the power of Congress.
"Congress’s relatively broad understanding of its own investigatory powers continued into the nineteenth century as both the House and Senate engaged in ongoing oversight of the Executive Branch. A variety of inquiries set important precedents establishing Congress’s authority to inquire into the expenditure of appropriated funds, activities of state officials, and operations of the military and post office.11"Wrong. All three branches are co-equal and check each other. For instance, the Executive Branch can check congress via vetoes and by use of Executive privilege. The Executive Branch checks the Judicial branch via court appointments.
Try reading this:
You might want to brush up on the “separation of powers” doctrine that underpins our governance-structures?Not at all. Congress has oversight power of the executive branch. The executive branch has no authority to check the power of Congress.
She is as demagogues usually are.MTG should not be near any committee, the lady is just purely hateful and disruptive. She is an attention seeker and has no interest in governing. Her personal attacks were unwarranted and unprofessional, she is a disgrace.
Congress does not hold all-powerful oversight of the Executive and Judicial branches."Congress’s relatively broad understanding of its own investigatory powers continued into the nineteenth century as both the House and Senate engaged in ongoing oversight of the Executive Branch. A variety of inquiries set important precedents establishing Congress’s authority to inquire into the expenditure of appropriated funds, activities of state officials, and operations of the military and post office.11"
. . . That Congress holds certain implied powers necessary to the functioning of a deliberative legislative body is a principle that would later lead to the judicial affirmation of the wider investigatory and oversight powers that Congress had already asserted in practice.15
I bolded the key points, Congress has no army like the Executive branch but implicit in the Constitution is the investigatory and oversight power of Congress in regard to the Executive branch.
No branch of government is all powerful--I saw no one claim such a thing. Congress has an oversight responsibility of the executive branch. As to this claim about executive privilege, there's a good summary in the Wall Street Journal:Congress does not hold all-powerful oversight of the Executive and Judicial branches.
Comer has nothing.Congress does not hold all-powerful oversight of the Executive and Judicial branches.
executive privilege
www.law.cornell.edu
Executive privilege is the power of the President and other officials in the executive branch to withhold certain forms of confidential communication from the courts and the legislative branch. When executive privilege is invoked in litigation, the court should weigh its applicability by balancing competing interests. The Constitution is silent on the executive power to withhold information from the courts or Congress; the privilege is rooted in the separation of powers doctrine that divides the power of the United States government into legislative, executive and judicial branches.
The doctrine of executive privilege defines the authority of the President to withhold documents or information in his possession or in the possession of the Executive Branch from the Legislative or Judicial Branch of the government. While the Constitution does not expressly confer upon the Executive Branch any such privilege, the Supreme Court has held that executive privilege derives from the constitutional separation of powers and from a necessary and proper concept respecting the carrying out of the duties of the presidency imposed by the Constitution.1 Although there are various and distinct components to executive privilege,2 the privilege’s foundation lies in the proposition that in making judgments and reaching decisions, the President and his advisors must be free to discuss issues candidly, express opinions, and explore options without fear that those deliberations will later be made public.3If the congress wants to fight the President, they have to go to court and it is the court that decides if the need of the congress outweighs the need ot the executive branch to withhold information.
You are being inconsistent with your arguments then. Back on page one, you wrote:No branch of government is all powerful--I saw no one claim such a thing. Congress has an oversight responsibility of the executive branch. As to this claim about executive privilege, there's a good summary in the Wall Street Journal:
I agree that it is hard to see how Joe can re-claim a privilege he has already waved.
My response was intended to point out that Congress has oversight power of the Executive branch (implicit in the Constitution) while the Executive branch has not been found by the Supreme Court to have oversight over the Congress. The comment led me to believe this was not understood.You are being inconsistent with your arguments then. Back on page one, you wrote:
"Not at all. Congress has oversight power of the executive branch. The executive branch has no authority to check the power of Congress."
That is making it out that the Congress has the power and the Executive branch has none which is not true.
The audio file was made as part of the investigation by Special Counsel Hur who used it (in part) to write the work-product he was hired to produce.I agree that it is hard to see how Joe can re-claim a privilege he has already waved.
There are limits to each of the three branches. The recording may have information that should not be released to the public.My response was intended to point out that Congress has oversight power of the Executive branch (implicit in the Constitution) while the Executive branch has not been found by the Supreme Court to have oversight over the Congress. The comment led me to believe this was not understood.
Obviously we know about the intent of three branches of government that are separate and equal. In this particular case the "best evidence" is the actual recording. Since a transcript has already been released without claiming executive privilege it seems next to impossible to claim the recording cannot be released under executive privilege. It would be the same for texts of Congressional hearings, a video would be better, I have seen sentences of testimony missing from text that are present in a CSPAN recording.
The recording is public property, if there is any national security information on the recording, such as name, it can be withheld with an explanation. Ideally the whole recording can be posted and be made available to the Congress and the public.There are limits to each of the three branches. The recording may have information that should not be released to the public.
And there is the expectation that Comer and friends will manipulate the the recordings to present it falsely - like they have done with other documentation that they got. They have people who act the fool like Greene.
I fail to see how any of this “sets back feminism,” much less sets it back 100 years.That was a ridiculous display from all 3. Honestly I don't care why or whether it worked.
These women should have respect for the office they hold with some manner of solemnity...
At least feminism is set back 100 years. It probably needed to be if this is the best we women have. I'm ashamed...
Even if it is public property, it can still be withheld if there is information that should not be shared with the public. Biden probably doesn't trust the Republican members of the committee to handle the information correctly.The recording is public property, if there is any national security information on the recording, such as name, it can be withheld with an explanation. Ideally the whole recording can be posted and be made available to the Congress and the public.
That's not a reason to withhold information from the public. Joe has to have a legal reason.Even if it is public property, it can still be withheld if there is information that should not be shared with the public. Biden probably doesn't trust the Republican members of the committee to handle the information correctly.