Cycloptichorn wrote:You have refused to answer my questions, why should I answer yours?
What question have I refused to answer?
Quote: We aren't dealing with a case of Congress regulating the Supreme Court. We are dealing with a case of Congress regulating the Executive branch. Try and keep focused here.
Quote:
Show me where the Constitution says that Congress can pass laws that violate the Constitution.
Article 1, section 8:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
You tell me what you think this means. It is quite clearly worded, and says nothing about Constitutionality or UnConstitutionality of a law, because that measure doesn't come into the equation during the creation of a law, and you know it! Laws passed by Congress are Constitutional until they have been declared not to be by the Supreme Court. The president can ignore a law, but he cannot declare it Unconstitutional with any bearing upon the law whatsoever.
Your question about the SC is nothing but a canard; you cannot successfully defend your theory, so, you seek to change the subject. Typical of your arguments.
Cycloptichorn
Read the article I linked you to, Cyclops, before you start preaching to me that the N&P clause is unambiguous.
And the question I asked about the Supreme Court is in point. You must think Congress has a general power to regulate the Supreme Court if you think it has a general power to regulate the President.
