50
Trump officials to receive immediate clearances and easier FBI vetting
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
50 points (94.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7315 readers
151 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
That's not how the constitution works
Which part would make a law requiring FBI checks to hold office illegal? If there isnt one then it's not unconstitutional
Well because the constitution explicitly defines the requirements of the office, in full. Congress making up additional requirements that are not amendments to the constitution would be violating the separation of powers, essentially it would allow congress with a simple majority to deny the Executive Branch it's constitutional powers.
Does it say 'these are the only requirements?' Or does it say 'these things are required?'
Necessary and sufficient are not interchangeable.
So you would be totally ok if congress passed a law that said basically only a specific person is eligible to be president? "All future presidents must be born on August 2, 1984, in Middletown, Ohio, and must be a member of the Republican party."
After all that wouldn't be unconstitutional to you would it?
Oh my god, shut the fuck up.
Just take the L. Maybe learn how the government works before trying to play "gotcha" with someone who paid attention in school.
No, fool, you're pulling examples clean out of your ass, on a different fucking subject.
The senate confirms federal officials.
How they do it is not specified, and according to over two hundred years of high-level bickering, that means they can do it however the fuck they want.
Even your ass-pull example ignores-- you've seen the NPVIC, right? There's a whole bunch of shit that YES, the American government CAN DO, regardless of whether it's intended, or desirable, or would lead to another civil war. We've already had the one, over some shit that was left ambiguous by this one precious document. So yeah, congress probably could specify your made-up thing, and the ink-on-paper constitution wouldn't be why it's total horseshit.
But you're such a psychic drain on this thread that I didn't want to have to spell out any of this. Hence: oh my god, just shut the fuck up.
Please tell the class where Cabinet level or below positions are defined in the Constitution
Article 2, section 2, which is exactly what I was referring to. The constitution is not a long or complex document should I explain the electoral college to you next?