strabo wrote:
Dick 'Tater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 22, 1:33 am, Cliff wrote:
[
And only impeachment could stop it.
]
no he cannot pardon himself, conflict of interest rules would
supersede his authority in that respect

There isn't a single limit imposed on a President in this regard.
The constitution is very clear.


You have it backwards. The Constitution specifies duties and
obligations. It specifies what the president must do. Anything
else is unconstitutional.

For example, making secret treaty agreements, preemptive wars,
'signing statements' and executive orders which effect non-executive
functions, are unconstitutional.

That Congress refuses to impeach and remove the president from office
simply indicates the high level of corruption in Congress.

Both parties have long ago left the Constitution.
Our current president-elect my be ineligible for the office per the
Constitution, but he and his people are ignoring demands to prove it.
I predict that if he cannot prove his eligibility as a U.S.-born
citizen, he will still take the office, the Constitution be damned.

"RB" wrote in message
...
strabo wrote:
Dick 'Tater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 22, 1:33 am, Cliff wrote:
[
And only impeachment could stop it.
]
no he cannot pardon himself, conflict of interest rules would
supersede his authority in that respect

There isn't a single limit imposed on a President in this regard.
The constitution is very clear.


You have it backwards. The Constitution specifies duties and
obligations. It specifies what the president must do. Anything
else is unconstitutional.

For example, making secret treaty agreements, preemptive wars,
'signing statements' and executive orders which effect non-executive
functions, are unconstitutional.

That Congress refuses to impeach and remove the president from office
simply indicates the high level of corruption in Congress.

Both parties have long ago left the Constitution.
Our current president-elect my be ineligible for the office per the
Constitution, but he and his people are ignoring demands to prove it.
I predict that if he cannot prove his eligibility as a U.S.-born citizen,
he will still take the office, the Constitution be damned.

He's proved it to the satisfaction of everyone except for a few crackpots:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Don't worry, RB. It's not true that fluoridation is the most monstrously
conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face. And he's
not going to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RB" wrote in message
...
strabo wrote:
Dick 'Tater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 22, 1:33 am, Cliff wrote:
[
And only impeachment could stop it.
]
no he cannot pardon himself, conflict of interest rules would
supersede his authority in that respect

There isn't a single limit imposed on a President in this regard.
The constitution is very clear.


You have it backwards. The Constitution specifies duties and
obligations. It specifies what the president must do. Anything
else is unconstitutional.

For example, making secret treaty agreements, preemptive wars,
'signing statements' and executive orders which effect non-executive
functions, are unconstitutional.

That Congress refuses to impeach and remove the president from office
simply indicates the high level of corruption in Congress.

Both parties have long ago left the Constitution.
Our current president-elect my be ineligible for the office per the
Constitution, but he and his people are ignoring demands to prove it.
I predict that if he cannot prove his eligibility as a U.S.-born citizen,
he will still take the office, the Constitution be damned.

He's proved it to the satisfaction of everyone except for a few crackpots:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Don't worry, RB. It's not true that fluoridation is the most monstrously
conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face. And he's
not going to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

--
Ed Huntress



"Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are
studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk,
ice cream?
Ice cream, Mandrake?
Children's ice cream!."

Purity of essence

Paul K. Dickman

"Paul K. Dickman" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RB" wrote in message
...
strabo wrote:
Dick 'Tater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 22, 1:33 am, Cliff wrote:
[
And only impeachment could stop it.
]
no he cannot pardon himself, conflict of interest rules would
supersede his authority in that respect

There isn't a single limit imposed on a President in this regard.
The constitution is very clear.


You have it backwards. The Constitution specifies duties and
obligations. It specifies what the president must do. Anything
else is unconstitutional.

For example, making secret treaty agreements, preemptive wars,
'signing statements' and executive orders which effect non-executive
functions, are unconstitutional.

That Congress refuses to impeach and remove the president from office
simply indicates the high level of corruption in Congress.

Both parties have long ago left the Constitution.
Our current president-elect my be ineligible for the office per the
Constitution, but he and his people are ignoring demands to prove it.
I predict that if he cannot prove his eligibility as a U.S.-born
citizen, he will still take the office, the Constitution be damned.

He's proved it to the satisfaction of everyone except for a few
crackpots:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Don't worry, RB. It's not true that fluoridation is the most monstrously
conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face. And he's
not going to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

--
Ed Huntress



"Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are
studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar,
milk, ice cream?
Ice cream, Mandrake?
Children's ice cream!."

Purity of essence

Paul K. Dickman

I think the author must have anticipated RB and strabo. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Paul K. Dickman wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"RB" wrote in message
...
strabo wrote:
Dick 'Tater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 22, 1:33 am, Cliff wrote:
[
And only impeachment could stop it.
]
no he cannot pardon himself, conflict of interest rules would
supersede his authority in that respect
There isn't a single limit imposed on a President in this regard.
The constitution is very clear.

You have it backwards. The Constitution specifies duties and
obligations. It specifies what the president must do. Anything
else is unconstitutional.

For example, making secret treaty agreements, preemptive wars,
'signing statements' and executive orders which effect non-executive
functions, are unconstitutional.

That Congress refuses to impeach and remove the president from office
simply indicates the high level of corruption in Congress.
Both parties have long ago left the Constitution.
Our current president-elect my be ineligible for the office per the
Constitution, but he and his people are ignoring demands to prove it.
I predict that if he cannot prove his eligibility as a U.S.-born citizen,
he will still take the office, the Constitution be damned.

He's proved it to the satisfaction of everyone except for a few crackpots:

Such as Supreme Court Justice Souter?

I used to use FactCheck. After several people pointed out the bias in
their "facts" I unsubscribed. I suggest you fact-check Factcheck.org
yourself. I'm using TruthorFiction.com currently

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Paul K. Dickman" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RB" wrote in message
...
strabo wrote:
Dick 'Tater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 22, 1:33 am, Cliff wrote:
[
And only impeachment could stop it.
]
no he cannot pardon himself, conflict of interest rules would
supersede his authority in that respect

There isn't a single limit imposed on a President in this regard.
The constitution is very clear.


You have it backwards. The Constitution specifies duties and
obligations. It specifies what the president must do. Anything
else is unconstitutional.

For example, making secret treaty agreements, preemptive wars,
'signing statements' and executive orders which effect non-executive
functions, are unconstitutional.

That Congress refuses to impeach and remove the president from office
simply indicates the high level of corruption in Congress.

Both parties have long ago left the Constitution.
Our current president-elect my be ineligible for the office per the
Constitution, but he and his people are ignoring demands to prove it.
I predict that if he cannot prove his eligibility as a U.S.-born
citizen, he will still take the office, the Constitution be damned.

He's proved it to the satisfaction of everyone except for a few
crackpots:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Don't worry, RB. It's not true that fluoridation is the most monstrously
conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face. And
he's not going to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

--
Ed Huntress



"Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are
studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar,
milk, ice cream?
Ice cream, Mandrake?
Children's ice cream!."

Purity of essence

Paul K. Dickman

I think the author must have anticipated RB and strabo. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

No, I think it is just that crackpots have always been a part human society.

It just that it was easier to ignore them before the internet came along.

I wonder if there are crackpots in canine packs.

Paul K. Dickman

"RB" wrote in message
...
Paul K. Dickman wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"RB" wrote in message
...
strabo wrote:
Dick 'Tater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 22, 1:33 am, Cliff wrote:
[
And only impeachment could stop it.
]
no he cannot pardon himself, conflict of interest rules would
supersede his authority in that respect
There isn't a single limit imposed on a President in this regard.
The constitution is very clear.

You have it backwards. The Constitution specifies duties and
obligations. It specifies what the president must do. Anything
else is unconstitutional.

For example, making secret treaty agreements, preemptive wars,
'signing statements' and executive orders which effect non-executive
functions, are unconstitutional.

That Congress refuses to impeach and remove the president from office
simply indicates the high level of corruption in Congress.
Both parties have long ago left the Constitution.
Our current president-elect my be ineligible for the office per the
Constitution, but he and his people are ignoring demands to prove it.
I predict that if he cannot prove his eligibility as a U.S.-born
citizen, he will still take the office, the Constitution be damned.

He's proved it to the satisfaction of everyone except for a few
crackpots:

Such as Supreme Court Justice Souter?

You really are a crackpot. Souter didn't say anything about it. And you
probably don't understand what's going on, with Berg bringing suit in state
after state, trying to establish standing with a writ of certiorari with the
Supreme Court.

His cases have been thrown out in every instance. All he has left is to make
an appeal for standing. That's what Souter ruled on -- that Berg and Obama
both have to respond to the appeal for the writ.


I used to use FactCheck. After several people pointed out the bias in
their "facts" I unsubscribed. I suggest you fact-check Factcheck.org
yourself. I'm using TruthorFiction.com currently

I have. The right-wing nutbags are accusing anyone who doesn't agree with
them; it's one claim after another. And you're full of crap.

--
Ed Huntress

"Paul K. Dickman" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Paul K. Dickman" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RB" wrote in message
...
strabo wrote:
Dick 'Tater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 22, 1:33 am, Cliff wrote:
[
And only impeachment could stop it.
]
no he cannot pardon himself, conflict of interest rules would
supersede his authority in that respect

There isn't a single limit imposed on a President in this regard.
The constitution is very clear.


You have it backwards. The Constitution specifies duties and
obligations. It specifies what the president must do. Anything
else is unconstitutional.

For example, making secret treaty agreements, preemptive wars,
'signing statements' and executive orders which effect non-executive
functions, are unconstitutional.

That Congress refuses to impeach and remove the president from office
simply indicates the high level of corruption in Congress.

Both parties have long ago left the Constitution.
Our current president-elect my be ineligible for the office per the
Constitution, but he and his people are ignoring demands to prove it.
I predict that if he cannot prove his eligibility as a U.S.-born
citizen, he will still take the office, the Constitution be damned.

He's proved it to the satisfaction of everyone except for a few
crackpots:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Don't worry, RB. It's not true that fluoridation is the most
monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to
face. And he's not going to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily
fluids.

--
Ed Huntress



"Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are
studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar,
milk, ice cream?
Ice cream, Mandrake?
Children's ice cream!."

Purity of essence

Paul K. Dickman

I think the author must have anticipated RB and strabo. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

No, I think it is just that crackpots have always been a part human
society.

It just that it was easier to ignore them before the internet came along.

I wonder if there are crackpots in canine packs.

Paul K. Dickman

A good question. I think our dog may be one.

Anyway, someday I want to meet an Internet crackpot or two, just to see what
they're really like. If they're as nutty in person as they are here, then
this place is like a funnel net for loonies. If they're not, I wonder what
makes them so loony here.

--
Ed Huntress

He's proved it to the satisfaction of everyone except for a few
crackpots:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Don't worry, RB. It's not true that fluoridation is the most
monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had
to
face. And he's not going to sap and impurify all of our precious
bodily
fluids.

--
Ed Huntress



"Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are
studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar,
milk, ice cream?
Ice cream, Mandrake?
Children's ice cream!."

Purity of essence

Paul K. Dickman

I think the author must have anticipated RB and strabo. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

No, I think it is just that crackpots have always been a part human
society.

It just that it was easier to ignore them before the internet came
along.

I wonder if there are crackpots in canine packs.

Paul K. Dickman

A good question. I think our dog may be one.

Anyway, someday I want to meet an Internet crackpot or two, just to see
what
they're really like. If they're as nutty in person as they are here, then
this place is like a funnel net for loonies. If they're not, I wonder what
makes them so loony here.

--
Ed Huntress


I'm sure you have already met a number of "internet crackpots" already. You
just didn't know it at the time. So the answer to your question is that they
aren't as nutty in person as they are here. What makes them so loony here is
the fact that they can say things they are afraid to say to you in person.
Because you would think they are a crackpot. Here they feel free to unload
all their loony ideas, which they keep to themselves in polite company. Here
there is no one to look at them like they're nuts when they say something
goofy. So they say the darndest things on the internet. Take away the fear
of public opprobrium and they let their nuttiness rip. We are reminded of
this on a daily basis, unfortunately.

Hawke