Have you contacted Trumps legal team yet to advise them? I mean you’re obviously a constitutional scholar who knows more about the law than any number of attorneys on both sides of the aisle…so why not? Surely you can name some others who are also espousing this nonsense.
What did the Supreme Court say that was wrong? Here. Let me quote it again: The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 890 (1961) Please point out the error in this statement.
the error is in the application of this statement. I’ve repeated this to you several times but you aren’t listening I suppose. Bill Barr even agrees with me that this is an absurd argument. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t pretend to be. You should try it out sometime. That said, Bill Barr, the guy who plays for your team says it’s an absurd legal strategy, akin to the one they tried out on January 6 with Mike Pence. I take the advice of experts when it comes to interpreting law, not some random guy on a chat forum.
Application of what? They specifically state the Authority of the president. It never changes. Again, what is wrong?? Here. Let me quote it again: The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 890 (1961) Please point out the error in this statement.
And you called me a lackey….. Look, why are you in a discussion board if you ain’t got the stones to have an original thought?
You can your “original thoughts” all you’d like man…I will listen to an expert when it comes to the law. I suppose this likely sums up the difference between us.
