Jump to content

Texas AG sues Biden for violating Constitution with signature on omnibus bill


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

What an indicted doofus. 

ArtI.S5.C1.2 Quorums

Article I, Section 5, Clause 1:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, KirtFalcon said:
ArtI.S5.C1.2 Quorums

Article I, Section 5, Clause 1:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

They'll argue that it's allowed because of the "in such manner" part.

If I'm not mistaken, there are a number of Republicans that want to do away with proxy voting, at least at the Federal level.

Edited by Monte1076
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

proxy voting, 

These people need to be in Washington to vote, not from their basements in Oregon, California, or New York. They were elected to be in Washington to represent their neighbors, doing it from home is worthless. I say the only votes should be in Washington DC, and if you have Quorum, you get to vote on things. The GOP should always have a full house and senate, so that a quorum in always present and maybe some things would get done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

These people need to be in Washington to vote, not from their basements in Oregon, California, or New York. They were elected to be in Washington to represent their neighbors, doing it from home is worthless. I say the only votes should be in Washington DC, and if you have Quorum, you get to vote on things. The GOP should always have a full house and senate, so that a quorum in always present and maybe some things would get done. 

A quorum is, I believe, more than half the members. It doesn't have to be a full House and Senate. Just more than half.

And I think the last time they did major proxy voting, the members who voted "by proxy" (i.e. someone casting a vote on their behalf, for them) those members either stayed in their offices or at their houses in DC, if I'm not mistaken. I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gamewatcher63 said:

So are you saying that the lawsuit has no legal standing….or are you just stating stupid demo talking points 

I am saying that he is a sleazy indicted joke of an AG, whose pandering for attention is misguided and a waste of tax payer dollars and oxygen for people who can think. He has ZIP standing on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

I am saying that he is a sleazy indicted joke of an AG, whose pandering for attention is misguided and a waste of tax payer dollars and oxygen for people who can think.

Your opinion of Paxton is completely irrelevant to whether or not the lawsuit he filed has merit.

If you don't think it does, tell us exactly how without telling us what you think of his character, but simply why you believe the suit doesn't have merit, and under what legal auspices it doesn't.

How about trying that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

Your opinion of Paxton is completely irrelevant to whether or not the lawsuit he filed has merit.

If you don't think it does, tell us exactly how without telling us what you think of his character, but simply why you believe the suit doesn't have merit, and under what legal auspices it doesn't.

How about trying that?

He can’t…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Monte1076 said:

Your opinion of Paxton is completely irrelevant to whether or not the lawsuit he filed has merit.

If you don't think it does, tell us exactly how without telling us what you think of his character, but simply why you believe the suit doesn't have merit, and under what legal auspices it doesn't.

How about trying that?

How about trying this, you obtuse wonder...Paxton settles for $3.3 MILLION dollars to pay off whistleblowers on his corruption, then he drums up a no standing stunt to move attention away from that and pander to you federal government haters. Try that on for size. Keep backing that smarmy idiot. It shows intestinal fortitude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

How about trying this, you obtuse wonder...Paxton settles for $3.3 MILLION dollars to pay off whistleblowers on his corruption, then he drums up a no standing stunt to move attention away from that and pander to you federal government haters. Try that on for size. Keep backing that smarmy idiot. It shows intestinal fortitude. 

Did I make you angry, or something? To paraphrase you, "Poor, poor Barry..."

I've never said I hate the Federal government. If I have, show me where I have. But wait, you can't. I don't look at the government as an unerring entity, or as a god, as you appear to.

And the settlement he paid out is irrelevant to the lawsuit he filed. The lawsuit has merit, or it does not. You apparently don't want to (or can't) explain your position. And have  I ever given any indication, at all, that I "back" Ken Paxton? Have I given any indication at all, one way or the other? Answer: No.

Now, try again: Why, legally, do you believe the lawsuit has no merit? Based on the lawsuit itself and not your opinion of Ken Paxton?

Case in point: I don't like Alec Baldwin. I think he's a giant a-hole, and not a very nice person. But I don't think he intentionally killed that lady on the set of Rust. I think it was a tragic accident.

Edited by Monte1076
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Now if the court systems actually followed the Constitution, then ANY business done without a Quorum, would then be nullified. Considering this above comes from Article 1 Section 5 Clause 1 of the Constitution, as Monte pointed out earlier. 

Whether you like or dislike the Ken Paxton--who should have had his cases heard in a court long ago--the Constitutionality of what he is trying to say, and quoting "My Cousin Vinny"--"holds water".....:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...