Covid Follies #8

[Matt Dillon]

Nice recitation, Matty....how does this change the FACT that the signing statements are and have been a LEGAL PART of the government apparatus LONG before you or I were born....much less that FACT that the Congressional Senate can take steps to curtail the legislative effects of such statements (via the SCOTUS, for example). You'd know this if your read the information in my link....which you obviously didn't.


Unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution, and have no legal effect. A signed law is still a law regardless of what the President says in an accompanying signing statement. In 1972, after President Nixon in a signing statement indicated that a provision in a bill submitted to him did not "represent the policies of this Administration" and was "without binding force or effect," a federal district court held that no executive statement, even by a President, "denying efficacy to the legislation could have either validity or effect." DaCosta v. Nixon External, 55 F.R.D. 145, 146 (E.D.N.Y. 1972).

Signing statements have been used since the early 19th century by Presidents to comment on the law being signed. Such comments can include giving the President's interpretation of the meaning of the law's language; asserting objections to certain provisions of the law on constitutional grounds; and stating the President's intent regarding how the President intends to execute, or carry out, the law, including giving guidance to executive branch personnel.

Signing statements have played a role in conflicts between the Executive and Legislative branches in the past. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt indicated in a signing statement in 1943, during World War II, that he felt Section 304 of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriations Act of 1943 (ch. 218, 57 Stat. 431, 450 (1943)) was unconstitutional, but that he had no choice but to sign the bill "to avoid delaying our conduct of the war." He indicated that he would enforce the law, but if the law was attacked in court, the Attorney General was to side with the plaintiff and attack the statute rather than defend it. When such a lawsuit did occur, Congress had to appoint a special counsel to defend the statute in court. The matter ultimately went to the Supreme Court, which agreed with President Roosevelt and struck down the provision, citing his signing statement in the Court's opinion (United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946)).

Fascist gov't don't require or incorporate signing statements. If you have a past or recent example that they do, then produce it.


Keep it coming, my confederate clown. Your delusion of expertise and deductive reasoning is most entertaining.

Hello! McFly! Those are laws that originated in The House and passed through The Senate.

Big difference from top-down decrees. :/

That garbage only started recently.

Also it seems to be snowballing and needs the brakes put on it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Nice recitation, Matty....how does this change the FACT that the signing statements are and have been a LEGAL PART of the government apparatus LONG before you or I were born....much less that FACT that the Congressional Senate can take steps to curtail the legislative effects of such statements (via the SCOTUS, for example). You'd know this if your read the information in my link....which you obviously didn't.


Unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution, and have no legal effect. A signed law is still a law regardless of what the President says in an accompanying signing statement. In 1972, after President Nixon in a signing statement indicated that a provision in a bill submitted to him did not "represent the policies of this Administration" and was "without binding force or effect," a federal district court held that no executive statement, even by a President, "denying efficacy to the legislation could have either validity or effect." DaCosta v. Nixon External, 55 F.R.D. 145, 146 (E.D.N.Y. 1972).

Signing statements have been used since the early 19th century by Presidents to comment on the law being signed. Such comments can include giving the President's interpretation of the meaning of the law's language; asserting objections to certain provisions of the law on constitutional grounds; and stating the President's intent regarding how the President intends to execute, or carry out, the law, including giving guidance to executive branch personnel.

Signing statements have played a role in conflicts between the Executive and Legislative branches in the past. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt indicated in a signing statement in 1943, during World War II, that he felt Section 304 of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriations Act of 1943 (ch. 218, 57 Stat. 431, 450 (1943)) was unconstitutional, but that he had no choice but to sign the bill "to avoid delaying our conduct of the war." He indicated that he would enforce the law, but if the law was attacked in court, the Attorney General was to side with the plaintiff and attack the statute rather than defend it. When such a lawsuit did occur, Congress had to appoint a special counsel to defend the statute in court. The matter ultimately went to the Supreme Court, which agreed with President Roosevelt and struck down the provision, citing his signing statement in the Court's opinion (United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946)).

Fascist gov't don't require or incorporate signing statements. If you have a past or recent example that they do, then produce it.


Keep it coming, my confederate clown. Your delusion of expertise and deductive reasoning is most entertaining.

Hello! McFly! Those are laws that originated in The House and passed through The Senate.

Big difference from top-down decrees. :/

That garbage only started recently.

The President does not create laws, genius. And stating a moot point pretty much contradicts your moronic bleating a revisionist belief.

READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IN THE LINK, YOU BLITHERING BUMPKIN! Like your orange pated hero, you think parroting what you THINK supercedes what actuallly IS. Fortunately, the objective reader sees your folly.

GTFU, Matty. There's nothing "fascists" about signing statements.....you or I may not like them regarding the subject or the Presidential political party, but that doesn't make them fascist. Like I schooled you earlier, true fascist gov't doesn't need, require or incorporate a signing statement. Got that, bunky?

 

[Matt Dillon]

The President does not create laws, genius. And stating a moot point pretty much contradicts your moronic bleating a revisionist belief.

READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IN THE LINK, YOU BLITHERING BUMPKIN! Like your orange pated hero, you think parroting what you THINK supercedes what actuallly IS. Fortunately, the objective reader sees your folly.

Look at the dates, dumbass! That's all before this whole bullshit started.

1972? Who was president? Nixon?

No Executive orders were happening then.

Oh? So why are Biden's decrees being enforced then?

Aside from anything pertaining to immigration, because the president has the right and duty to set immigration policy.

I definitely don't approve of his "Bad for America" choices on that.

Why should his lobbying decrees be enforced? What about that pipeline thing or Biden engineering an American fuel crisis within the next 6 months?

He's over there poking Putin when we may very well need OPEC AND Russian oil to keep the daily grind going now that Biden has put the fuck on American fuel independence.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Oh? So why are Biden's decrees being enforced then?

Because the LAW passed through the Congress and Senate without GOP votes necessary, genius! PAY ATTENTION TO CURRENT EVENTS, AND USE OTHER NEWS SOURCES BESIDES CLEAR CHANNEL OR FOX OR THE MURDOCH media machine. Jeez!

I oughta here for now. Got stuff to do. Your education will have to wait. Blather on, Gen. Lee

 

[Matt Dillon]

Because the LAW passed through the Congress and Senate without GOP votes necessary, genius! PAY ATTENTION TO CURRENT EVENTS, AND USE OTHER NEWS SOURCES BESIDES CLEAR CHANNEL OR FOX OR THE MURDOCH media machine. Jeez!

I oughta here for now. Got stuff to do. Your education will have to wait. Blather on, Gen. Lee

So they drew up up a bill, and it magically sailed through both houses just that quick, huh?

You're a fucking tard. That did not happen.

Show me the Bills, dumbass!

There are no bills, only top-down decrees. True Story.

EOs are NOT bills that went through Congress, dumbass!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Because the LAW passed through the Congress and Senate without GOP votes necessary, genius! PAY ATTENTION TO CURRENT EVENTS, AND USE OTHER NEWS SOURCES BESIDES CLEAR CHANNEL OR FOX OR THE MURDOCH media machine. Jeez!

I oughta here for now. Got stuff to do. Your education will have to wait. Blather on, Gen. Lee

So they drew up up a bill, and it magically sailed through both houses just that quick, huh?

You're a fucking tard. That did not happen.

Show me the Bills, dumbass!

There are no bills, only top-down decrees. True Story.

EOs are NOT bills that went through Congress, dumbass!

My God, you really are this ignorant of how things work, aren't you? Once again for your education https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/How-Bill-Becomes-Law

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/25/a-productivity-scorecard-for-115th-congress/


That's how it's done, toodles. Nothing in this or the previous information that you ignored that demonstrates or allows Biden to do 'top down decrees' via a signing statement. That's what YOU initially asserted, of which you compounded your error by claiming it was "fascist" in nature.

Your proud ignorance and insipid stubbornness are just pathetic.....small wonder you're still flying a confederate flag, as facts and logic mean little to you.


I've proven everthing I stated in this regard using valid, documented facts. You have yet to do so beyond parallel moot points and parroting beliefs as fact. Well toodles, PROVE YOUR LAST 2 sentences. None of your out-of-your-ass claims, I want valid documentation that what you assert has happened in no uncertain terms. If you can't find it, don't waste everyone's time with your BS.

 

[Matt Dillon]

My God, you really are this ignorant of how things work, aren't you? Once again for your education https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/How-Bill-Becomes-Law

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/25/a-productivity-scorecard-for-115th-congress/


That's how it's done, toodles. Nothing in this or the previous information that you ignored that demonstrates or allows Biden to do 'top down decrees' via a signing statement. That's what YOU initially asserted, of which you compounded your error by claiming it was "fascist" in nature.

Your proud ignorance and insipid stubbornness are just pathetic.....small wonder you're still flying a confederate flag, as facts and logic mean little to you.


I've proven everthing I stated in this regard using valid, documented facts. You have yet to do so beyond parallel moot points and parroting beliefs as fact. Well toodles, PROVE YOUR LAST 2 sentences. None of your out-of-your-ass claims, I want valid documentation that what you assert has happened in no uncertain terms. If you can't find it, don't waste everyone's time with your BS.

The last 15-20 things were not bills that went through Congress.

EOs are NOT bills that went through Congress, dumbass!

You are NOT a Liberal. You are a Social Marxist myopic Commie retard that hates America!

 

[Taichiliberal]

The last 15-20 things were not bills that went through Congress.

EOs are NOT bills that went through Congress, dumbass!

You are NOT a Liberal. You are a Social Marxist myopic Commie retard that hates America!

And there you have it, dear readers. This Confederate flag waving fop can't logically or factually debate his statements beyond a short period....it's all opinion, bluff and bluster for our Matty....a dimwit who supported a "leader" who built hotels that excluded the likes of Matty, who was anti-union, constantly stiffing workers, out sourced labor as to not to pay Americans, used Chinese steel to build his hotels and then bitched that China was "eating our lunch".

This is why I posted the OP, because any stupid move by the current administration to enforce "covid spread prevention" rules that directly affect public movement, etc., is playing right into the hands of willfully ignorant louts like Matty.

Time will tell, but one thing is certain..Matty has once again demonstrated to be a preposterous right wing troll. He's done.

 

[CASPER]

Oh just an update, Europe is now experiencing their Third wave of the virus, coming to a community near you real soon, yes, we picked a great time to open up our States, I hope they charge the leaders that are sentencing their citizens to a death sentence with Murder, because that is what it is.

 

[Nordberg]

EOs have all the power of laws.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Oh just an update, Europe is now experiencing their Third wave of the virus, coming to a community near you real soon, yes, we picked a great time to open up our States, I hope they charge the leaders that are sentencing their citizens to a death sentence with Murder, because that is what it is.

But here's the thing, are there actual "cases" were people are hospitalized and treated, or are they just confirmed to have the virus and sent home unless things get critical? And is there ANYONE advocating at home treatments using OTC, homeopathic and alternative methods to alieve symptoms and prevent deterioration?

A LOT of questions that need to be answered before we just buy the Fauci Follies once again.

 

[Taichiliberal]

EOs have all the power of laws.

until the courts stop them. Big difference from what our right wing rummy is carrying on about.

 

[CASPER]

But here's the thing, are there actual "cases" were people are hospitalized and treated, or are they just confirmed to have the virus and sent home unless things get critical? And is there ANYONE advocating at home treatments using OTC, homeopathic and alternative methods to alieve symptoms and prevent deterioration?

A LOT of questions that need to be answered before we just buy the Fauci Follies once again.

It is just starting with a new rise in cases detected, there is always a lag time between the spread and hospitalizations and then deaths, they are try their best to be proactive but it is probably too late to avoid.'

Have nothing to do with Fauci?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
But here's the thing, are there actual "cases" were people are hospitalized and treated, or are they just confirmed to have the virus and sent home unless things get critical? And is there ANYONE advocating at home treatments using OTC, homeopathic and alternative methods to alieve symptoms and prevent deterioration?

A LOT of questions that need to be answered before we just buy the Fauci Follies once again.

It is just starting with a new rise in cases detected, there is always a lag time between the spread and hospitalizations and then deaths, they are try their best to be proactive but it is probably too late to avoid.'

Have nothing to do with Fauci?

That's my point...detection is not the same as hospitalization, much less examination and treatment via a precription. But to date, the lines have been blurred in this respect. If there were true proactive responses, you'd have reccomendations for home treatments using OTC, homeopathic and alternative methods to alieve symptoms and prevent deterioration. We don't, and I don't hear anything about our European cousins doing so either.

I refer to Fauci as our news is warning "it can come here, it's already here" drum beating. Fauci is the point man for bad science here, just as he was for th HIV=AIDS debacle back in the 1980's. Big Pharma makes money, but the public gets a half assed treatment.

 

[Matt Dillon]

EOs have all the power of laws.

That didn't really go through the proper channels.

 

[cordeela]

By "certification" do you mean periodic temperature checks at the door of establishments?

Proof of PCR test.

 

[Lightbringer]

And there you have it, dear readers. This Confederate flag waving fop can't logically or factually debate his statements beyond a short period....it's all opinion, bluff and bluster for our Matty....a dimwit who supported a "leader" who built hotels that excluded the likes of Matty, who was anti-union, constantly stiffing workers, out sourced labor as to not to pay Americans, used Chinese steel to build his hotels and then bitched that China was "eating our lunch".

This is why I posted the OP, because any stupid move by the current administration to enforce "covid spread prevention" rules that directly affect public movement, etc., is playing right into the hands of willfully ignorant louts like Matty.

Time will tell, but one thing is certain..Matty has once again demonstrated to be a preposterous right wing troll. He's done.

You're an idiot.

1. The "fop" is right, an EO is not a law.
2. You had no grand scheme behind your OP, we all read it. You were confused as to why someone in the government said Nazi shit. That is all, your OP was short...unusual for you but it's clear that the only reason you posted the OP was confusion. Something you excel at.

 

[Nordberg]

until the courts stop them. Big difference from what our right-wing rummy is carrying on about.

EOs have the power of law . They remain in effect until the prez cancels it, revokes it, it is adjudicated unlawful, or expires.
Biden wiped out many of Trump's when he took power.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
By "certification" do you mean periodic temperature checks at the door of establishments?

Proof of PCR test.

Again, you're asking for a form of "papers" beyond a driver's license that is PRECISELY what the fringe anti-gov't types are wailing about. That you have this moronic "half on, half off" nonsense with the masks and public gatherings in relation to various vaccines that can't even guarantee immunity is just why I titled this thread as is.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
until the courts stop them. Big difference from what our right-wing rummy is carrying on about.

EOs have the power of law . They remain in effect until the prez cancels it, revokes it, it is adjudicated unlawful, or expires.
Biden wiped out many of Trump's when he took power.

Not quite https://guides.loc.gov/legislative-history/presidential-communications/signing-statements