What does this phrase mean? To help BC

[2tallbill]

Please anyone with a good command of English please explain if your own words what
these words in bold mean.

From Article Two of the US Constitution.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

1. Does anyone thinks that it means that other people in the executive department get to tell
the president what he can read?
2. Does anyone think that they can say "You can't read that cuz it's classified!"
3. Does anyone think that he can't say, "This isn't classified because, I say so!"
4. Does anyone think that laws can be written to take away the first sentence of Article Two
without Amending the constitution?
5. Does anyone think that once the president has said. "I can read this piece of paper!"
that some future petty functionary can say "not now you can't read that exact piece
of paper"? 

[2tallbill]

The differences between Biden and Trump have been discussed.

Absolutely, Biden wasn't president when he took classified files and let his ghost rider
read them. Then keep them in boxes in his office that was paid for by the Red Chinese
commies.

[2tallbill]

Markje,
Bodine,

Is the English language so difficult to comprehend?

Is article two of the US Constitution so difficult to understand?

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Please read it and tell me how others can tell the president that he can't declassify anything
he wants by waving his hand. Congress can't write laws that usurp his presidential powers.
Neither can some functionary in some other department.

They can't ex-post facto reclassify documents that he previously waived his hand over.

[2tallbill]

US Constitution
Article One Section Nine
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Source the US Constitution
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text

A bill of attainder is legislation that declares a party is guilty of a crime.

Ex post facto refers to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby
criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed.

[BC]

You're grasping at straws, Bill. The US Constitution was not written yesterday.  Many laws, precedents, regulations, procedures, and executive orders are derived from the powers it gives the branches of our government, and now you insist they are all wrong?

Much of this has already been discussed, so there is little need to rehash it.  All we can do is be patient and let our Constitutional system work as designed.  If anything is amiss, there are many layers of protection to set things right.

Instead of just saying, "Wrong!!" consider it a work in progress.

[2tallbill]

You're grasping at straws, Bill. The US Constitution was not written yesterday.  Many laws, precedents, regulations, procedures, and executive orders are derived from the powers it gives the branches of our government, and now you insist they are all wrong?

Precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that becomes authoritative to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts. The legal doctrine stating that courts should follow precedent is called stare decisis.

So me a legal precedent. Show me a court case where the president can't declassify a paper or
document. Show me a case where the declassification expires or a court case where the president
can no longer read/review his own documents. You can't because there isn't any.

Congress can't give or take away powers of the president, without amending the constitution.
Presidents can't assign, restrict or take away powers of future administrations. There are
no ex-post facto prosecutions allowable either.

Remember congress gave Bill Clinton the line item veto? It was declared unconstitutional.
Congress can make laws allowed in their assigned powers. They can't assign or restrict
presidential powers.

Find me a legal case showing me I'm wrong and I'll consider it, but I have never heard of
one. I've looked.

[BC]

Bill,

we've already been there and done that.

The bottom line is that to declassify information a sitting President has to take some tangible action to authorize and inform the classification authority for the document IAW EO 13526 so that documents can be marked accordingly and removed from secure storage. Obviously, he did not do so. Other copies of the same files still have classification markings on them today. He couldn't telepathically transmit authorization, and even if he could somehow do so, he certainly could not after leaving the White House. The same principle applies to Executive Pardons.. or do you really think he can wake up this morning and say that he telepathically pardoned El Chapo before he left the White House?

And you seem to believe there must be a precedent? Don't be silly...

[2tallbill]

Bill,

we've already been there and done that.

The bottom line is that to declassify information a sitting President has to take some tangible action to authorize and inform the classification authority for the document IAW EO 13526 so that documents can be marked accordingly and removed from secure storage. Obviously, he did not do so. Other copies of the same files still have classification markings on them today. He couldn't telepathically transmit authorization, and even if he could somehow do so, he certainly could not after leaving the White House. The same principle applies to Executive Pardons.. or do you really think he can wake up this morning and say that he telepathically pardoned El Chapo before he left the White House?

And you seem to believe there must be a precedent? Don't be silly...

You are being tiresome. Trump did not back up a van to the white house and fill it with files.
Joe Biden took home files not Trump.

The President doesn't fill out requisitions, stamp documents or fill out form IAW EO 13526.
People do that for the president. If the president says, I want you to pack up these files for
my presidential papers, then he doesn't fill out the forms, or any other bureaucratic stuff.

He has authorized those files to be legally packed up to go to his home for his presidential papers.

Do you get that? If someone did not get around to filing form IAW EO 13526 and stamping
each page, that's on them. Trump authorized it while being President so stop going blah,
blah, blah. Biden cooperated heeze guud. Orange man didn't cooperate heeze bad.

[rosco]

Bill,

we've already been there and done that.

The bottom line is that to declassify information a sitting President has to take some tangible action to authorize and inform the classification authority for the document IAW EO 13526 so that documents can be marked accordingly and removed from secure storage. Obviously, he did not do so. Other copies of the same files still have classification markings on them today. He couldn't telepathically transmit authorization, and even if he could somehow do so, he certainly could not after leaving the White House. The same principle applies to Executive Pardons.. or do you really think he can wake up this morning and say that he telepathically pardoned El Chapo before he left the White House?

And you seem to believe there must be a precedent? Don't be silly...

You are being tiresome. Trump did not back up a van to the white house and fill it with files.
Joe Biden took home files not Trump.

The President doesn't fill out requisitions, stamp documents or fill out form IAW EO 13526.
People do that for the president. If the president says, I want you to pack up these files for
my presidential papers, then he doesn't fill out the forms, or any other bureaucratic stuff.

He has authorized those files to be legally packed up to go to his home for his presidential papers.

Do you get that? If someone did not get around to filing form IAW EO 13526 and stamping
each page, that's on them. Trump authorized it while being President so stop going blah,
blah, blah. Biden cooperated heeze guud. Orange man didn't cooperate heeze bad.

I can feel your frustration Beel but it's what BC does to people. I'm just glad he cant abuse his moderator status over here.

[Bodine]

You are beingtiresome…..

FTFY.

When someone tries to redefine a rather simple English word to fit his narrative, maybe rosco was right in his assessments that he’s trolling.

BC is an indoctrinated, deluded man struck deeply with TDS. Nutty in Italy.

[BC]

You are being tiresome.

I can feel your frustration Beel but it's what BC does to people.

BC is an indoctrinated, deluded man struck deeply with TDS. Nutty in Italy.

If someone asks a question and the only thing y'all can do is whine about an answer it's your problem, not mine  

 

[2tallbill]

If someone asks a question and the only thing y'all can do is whine about an answer it's your problem, not mine  

The purpose of starting this thread is that you consider the constitution or the bill of rights
as ambiguous, when they are written very clearly. 7th Grader classes study it and are able
to comment intelligently about it. That's when I studied it first in detail as a schoolboy.

AND you consider one violation of constitutional rights as evidence that others can be deprived
of their constitutional rights. You don't site any court cases or law.

In your mind the George Floyd killing was justified by the Rodney King beating.
Roger Stone is deprived of his first Amendment rights therefore so should Trump.


BC Pooh-poohing clear arguments because they cut straight to the point.

You're grasping at straws, Bill.

And you seem to believe there must be a precedent? Don't be silly...

we've already been there and done that.

 

[BC]

The purpose of starting this thread is that you consider the constitution or the bill of rights
as ambiguous, when they are written very clearly. 7th Grader classes study it and are able
to comment intelligently about it. That's when I studied it first in detail as a schoolboy.

AND you consider one violation of constitutional rights as evidence that others can be deprived
of their constitutional rights. You don't site any court cases or law.

In your mind the George Floyd killing was justified by the Rodney King beating.
Roger Stone is deprived of his first Amendment rights therefore so should Trump.


BC Pooh-poohing clear arguments because they cut straight to the point.

You're grasping at straws, Bill.

And you seem to believe there must be a precedent? Don't be silly...

we've already been there and done that.

 

No, Bill. I consider the US Constitution a seed, and a whole tree has grown from it.

As for poo-poohing, I added substance prior, and not as my only argument as Rosco and Bodine prefer.

[2tallbill]

No, Bill. I consider the US Constitution a seed, and a whole tree has grown from it.

You haven't been able to make your arguments tying it together from point A = Free speech
to point B = no free speech. If there was a tree anyone could follow A to B yet you haven't
been able to when asked.

[BC]

It's not binary, Bill.  Freedom of speech is not absolute, with many exceptions and limitations along many branches of the tree.

[2tallbill]

It's not binary, Bill.  Freedom of speech is not absolute, with many exceptions and limitations along many branches of the tree.

Free speech is nearly absolute. you can't name many exceptions or limitations.
I challenge your assertion that there are many exceptions along many branches.

You can't speak when others are speaking in court, it has to be your time to speak, but
it's nearly absolute. You can be held responsible for what you say, but you can say it.
The limitations are rare and the court cases for those limits are very easy to find.

If you can't name a court case restricting one of"your exceptions" you are probably
wrong about your opinion/theory.

The constitution is not a seed, it's the trunk, with branches coming from there.

[AvHdB]

While I have less free time and I prefer not to discuss this sort of politics, I commend Bill for the fortitude to respond to BC. I must admit when I do look and peruse the threads I find myself wondering is BC a Moby clone.

[2tallbill]

While I have less free time and I prefer not to discuss this sort of politics, I commend Bill for the fortitude to respond to BC. I must admit when I do look and peruse the threads I find myself wondering is BC a Moby clone.

Moby has set a high bar for someone who can't peaceably coexist on a forum with normal
people.

BC never follows me around from thread to thread and has never tracked down my wife on
Facebook. Moby tells bald face porkie pies about things that clearly didn't happen, BC never
claimed to meet with ________ (person he never met). BC has occasionally found me making
a mistake (as have others).

BC has never logged on pretending to be a woman, then start arguing his same points with
the same people. BC is fully capable of peacefully coexisting on a forum with normal people.