[NTLK] SOPA Legislation

J.M. Heinrichs minicapt1 at mac.com
Tue Jan 17 20:00:31 EST 2012

I think someone is trying to refer to an opinion from the "Office of Legal Council" which apparently believes the President can re-write the rules under which Congress runs.

Article 1, Section 5, USC
-Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
-Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

J.M. Heinrichs
 minicapt1 at mac.com

On 17 Jan 12, at 16:43, Dennis Swaney wrote:

> You mean the DOJ run by Eric Holder? BTW, to what "legal opinion" are you
> referring? Please post a link. Thank you.
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 15:39, Robert Stewart
> <robertdylanstewart at gmail.com>wrote:
>> The U.S. Department of Justice says you're wrong. It's all over the news.
>> Until that legal opinion gets challenged in an actual court, it is
>> inarguably more valid than your opinion that the appointments were
>> unconstitutional. The SCOTUS decides whether something is unconstitutional,
>> not senators, not representatives, and certainly not the public.
>> Deal with it and STFU, like the Republicans told me to do for eight years.
>> --
>> Robert D. Stewart - AC5ZH
>> Sent from my phone
>> On Jan 17, 2012, at 17:09, Dennis Swaney <romad at aol.com> wrote:
>>> Doesn't matter what Congress does as Our Dear And Glorious Leader has
>>> started ruling by fiat because "we can't wait". An example is his spate
>> of
>>> "recess" appointments when Congress is NOT in recess. So the passage of
>>> SOPA and PIPA is moot. Our Dear And Glorious Leader will implement the
>>> policies only if they give him more power.
>>> --
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Dennis B. Swaney
>>> California People's Republic
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 14:16, Lloyd Conway <doc_retro at juno.com> wrote:
>>>> I'd like to think that you're right, Jon, but he threatened to veto the
>>>> 2011 NDAA, the new law that gives him the power to arrest and imprison
>>>> Americans within our borders on his own authority w/o any check or
>> balance,
>>>> if he deems them to be 'threats' and he's declared the USA to be a
>>>> 'battlefield' in the war on terror, so i do not hold out hope that he'll
>>>> refuse to sign such a bill.  It may not empower him directly, but it
>>>> empowers those with power.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -Lloyd Conway
>>>> Charlotte, Michigan
>>>> "Except apparently, today, Obama threatened to veto it, and Congress
>>>> has supposedly dropped the bill. We'll see how this goes in the
>>>> future, but I'd like to think that many congressmen are currently
>>>> breathing a sigh of relief--this thing kind of grew a life of its own,
>>>> and nobody seemed willing to try to seriously stop it. (my theory for
>>>> why, once word came from the WH threatening the veto, that Congress
>>>> was so quick to drop that potato)
>>>> --
>>>> ?-Jon Glass
>>>> Krakow, Poland
>>>> <jonglass at usa.net>"
> ==================================================================== 
> The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://newtontalk.net/
> The Official Newton FAQ     - http://splorp.com/newton/faq/
> The Newton Glossary         - http://splorp.com/newton/glossary/
> WikiWikiNewt                - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
> ====================================================================

More information about the NewtonTalk mailing list