March 14, 2018 1:49 pm at 1:49 pm #1489553Geordie613Participant
Joseph, Firstly, you can make the argument and some still believe it is possible, Read about the town of Orania and the Volkstaat. However, I shudder to think how Jews would fare under that model.
Secondly, I did say she is the moral example. I don’t know how Charles will look when he ascends the throne. He’s been good the last few years. People are looking forward to William’s eventual reign, as thus far he hasn’t got that baggage. People like and respect William & Kate as the future of the monarchy.March 14, 2018 2:03 pm at 2:03 pm #1489567
Chiefshmerel, I wrote that FDR died. I did not write that he was killed.March 14, 2018 2:20 pm at 2:20 pm #1489571
Geordie: I don’t particularly see why SA Jews would have fared differently now than before the end of apartheid, had apartheid not been discontinued (as it shouldn’t have been.)March 14, 2018 2:20 pm at 2:20 pm #1489570
CTL, if the Senate only decides to censure or reprimand him it has not convicted him (= guilty of a criminal offense). It has only found that he acted improperly albeit not illegally. BTW, there is another way. According to Amendment 25 Section 4 “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”March 14, 2018 2:20 pm at 2:20 pm #1489569
No, she doesn’t. The decision whether to assent to legislation is made not by the Queen but by the active members of the Privy Council, which is to say the Cabinet. She has no say in the matter.
Milhouse: The Queen has the legal right to make the determination whether to grant or refuse Royal Assent regardless of what the Privy Council recommends. That said, its been a very long time since any monarch refused Royal Assent.March 14, 2018 2:40 pm at 2:40 pm #1489590chiefshmerelParticipant
@Milhouse, just because Faux News doesn’t report it doesn’t mean it’s false. And it’s not like it’s even being done undercover. I will gladly explain each one in detail, if you’re interested.March 14, 2018 2:40 pm at 2:40 pm #1489593
Joseph, no, she does not have that right. She <i>must</i> act on the Privy Council’s advice regardless of how much she disagrees with it. Her opinion is irrelevant; she doesn’t even get a vote on the matter.March 14, 2018 2:41 pm at 2:41 pm #1489597chiefshmerelParticipant
@AviK, I know. But you also wrote that Lincoln died. That gives the implication that their popularity had something to do with their death. The uninformed would assume that FDR was killed.March 14, 2018 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #1489605
Avi K, all talk of removing the president through the 25th amendment is silly. The 25th amendment requires all the same people who are needed to remove him by impeachment, *plus* a whole lot more.
To remove a president by impeachment you need:
1. A simple majority of the House
2. Two thirds of the senate.
To remove a president by the 25th amendment over his objections, you need:
1. The vice president and the majority of the cabinet
2. Two thirds of the House
2. Two thirds of the senate.
The 25th amendment is designed to remove a president who does not object but is incapable of resigning, or to remove a much-loved and respected president who unfortunately doesn’t understand the need to go, but without embarrassing him by accusing him of wrongdoing.March 14, 2018 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #1489666Geordie613Participant
It is true that the Afrikaner apartheid government were not anti-semitic. They were friendly to Israel, and their racist policies aside, were very moral religious people. However, it has been said that they focused on the native African population and their racism was played out on them. But as we know through this bitter golus, once people start dividing along race lines, it’s a short hop skip and jump to the Jews.March 14, 2018 4:00 pm at 4:00 pm #1489673
chiefshmerel, I don’t get my news from Fox, but you are so taken in by the lies of the major outlets that you’re not even aware of the correct spelling of “Fox”. Fox is from from perfect, but it is the network that at least aspires to tell the truth, while your “news” sources are fully functioning arms of the Democratic Party, and barely bother hiding it. Every single one of the claims you made is a blatant lie, and you transgress the posuk מדבר שקר תרחק.March 14, 2018 5:43 pm at 5:43 pm #1490213yossellegoylemParticipant
The REALITY is … Donald J Trump is already the King of USA (Theoretically)
He has more power than most monarchs in the world have in their country.
But, practically speaking, we should crown him King, but only if we can fire him thru a tweet whenever we feel it necessary!March 15, 2018 8:01 am at 8:01 am #1490713
Chiefshmerel, are you serious? It is obvious that my intention was that they could not have been popular Presidents at the times you cited as they were dead.
Milhouse, Section 4 says:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.”
So the VP and a few cabinet members can depoe POTUS for at least 21 days (if Congress is not in session more). Theoretically they can depose him, Congress can restore him and they can depose him again.March 15, 2018 8:57 am at 8:57 am #1490791
Sure, so they can seize power for 21 days. And what happens then? They’ve got an enraged president, who will immediately fire the cabinet members who conspired against him, and exile the vice president from the White House. What will you have achieved?
No, to remove the president via the 25th amendment you need two thirds of each house. And if you have that, why bother using this cumbersome procedure, when you can impeach and remove him within a week, tops; and you can do that <i>without</i> the VP or any cabinet members, and with only a simple majority of the House rather than 2/3.March 15, 2018 11:29 am at 11:29 am #1490942
Milhouse, that would lead to a very interesting scenario. Suppose the fired cabinet members (there is nothing he can do about the VP) use that as proof that he is incapacitated? If there are no cabinet members because he fired all of them and did not get around to appointing new ones can the VP depose him himself?March 15, 2018 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm #1491004
The VP has no constitutional powers other than presiding over the Senate, without a voting right (unless there’s a tie.) The VP can depose no one.
When a cabinet member is fired or becomes vacant there is always an immediate Acting Secretary that replaces him.March 15, 2018 1:04 pm at 1:04 pm #1491053
Sorry, Joseph, you’re wrong on both counts.
The VP together with a majority of the cabinet can vote to remove the president, either temporarily or permanently, and if he doesn’t object that’s it. If he objects, then it goes to Congress and if 2/3 of each house agree with the removal it stays in place, otherwise the president comes back.
And no, there is no automatic replacement of a cabinet member. The position remains vacant until the president nominates someone else, and the senate confirms that person. An acting secretary is not a cabinet member and cannot vote on removing the president.March 15, 2018 1:23 pm at 1:23 pm #1491064
Milhouse, I didn’t comment on whether the Acting Secretary has any rights under the 25th Amendment.
As far as the VP’s power under the 25th, you’re correct that that’s an additional constitutional power given him relatively recently. I thought that was self-understood based on the above discussion of the 25th but should’ve been clearer in my comment on the VP’s powers. I could’ve also been contextually clearer commenting about Acting Secretaries. Thank you for pointing these out.March 15, 2018 2:04 pm at 2:04 pm #1491082☕️coffee addictParticipant
Wow, joe admitting a mistake
I think I hear a shofar blowing 😜
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.