Presidents What Has Been Shot At

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...

Its the governments money, not "congress'" money

Well then Brannigan, you clearly never had a sufficient understanding of the
Constitution to puvblish anything WRT the Constitution. The purse is
Congress'.

In article ,
(Jack Linthicum) wrote:



"I know this is hard for you but the comments are supposed to have
some relevance to the thread. I didn't knock Nixon,

Nah, of course not...that whole HMS Pinafore ditty was not directed at
the
subject you were discussing, now was it?


You then have forgotten the Gilbert and Sullivan costumes, er
uniforms, that RMN wanted for his 'palace guard'?

I was honored to be in the "cheering White House crowd" during their
single public appearance, a visit by the UK PM. The media never quite
got the embarrassed looks on the police faces. OTOH, _nobody_ knew what
they were, so perhaps they could brush it off.

Gad, they looked ridiculous.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...

Its the governments money, not "congress'" money

Well then Brannigan, you clearly never had a sufficient understanding of the
Constitution to puvblish anything WRT the Constitution. The purse is
Congress'.

But the Treasury is the executive's. Its just like the army, the Congress can
provide for one, but the president is in charge of it. that's how it works.

Vince

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...

Its the governments money, not "congress'" money

Well then Brannigan, you clearly never had a sufficient understanding of
the
Constitution to puvblish anything WRT the Constitution. The purse is
Congress'.

But the Treasury is the executive's. Its just like the army, the Congress
can
provide for one, but the president is in charge of it. that's how it
works.

Non-sequitur.

You are back to confusing Constitutional Authority with Enabling Law, Vince.

What crank outfit published anything you wrote about the constitution,
Vince. Is there a link to the paper?

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...

Your claim to have written to Constitutional Law was just some cut and
paste, Vince.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...

Its the governments money, not "congress'" money

Well then Brannigan, you clearly never had a sufficient understanding of
the
Constitution to puvblish anything WRT the Constitution. The purse is
Congress'.

But the Treasury is the executive's. Its just like the army, the Congress
can
provide for one, but the president is in charge of it. that's how it
works.

Non-sequitur.

You are back to confusing Constitutional Authority with Enabling Law, Vince.

nonsense. The constitution divided spending authority between the executive
and the legislature.

See below



What crank outfit published anything you wrote about the constitution,
Vince. Is there a link to the paper?

my particular work is in contrasting federal and state regulatory power cf

Brannigan, Applying New Laws to Existing Buildings: Retrospective Fire Safety
Codes,
60 U. DET. J. URB. L. 447, 460 (1983)


But the issue you are confused on is clearly stated in Cases such as BOWSHER.
the constituion clearly sets out separate spheres of action for congress and the
president. Its constituional not statutory.

"We noted recently that "[the] Constitution sought to divide the delegated
powers of the new Federal Government into three defined categories,
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951 (1983).
The declared
purpose of separating and dividing the powers of government, of course, was to
"[diffuse] power the better to secure liberty." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v.
Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). Justice Jackson's
words
echo the famous warning of Montesquieu, quoted by James Madison in The
Federalist No. 47, that "'there can be no liberty where the legislative and
executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates'. . . ."
The Federalist No. 47, p. 325 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).

Even a cursory examination of the Constitution reveals the influence of
Montesquieu's thesis that checks and balances were the foundation of a
structure of government that would protect liberty. The Framers provided a
vigorous Legislative Branch and a separate and wholly independent Executive
Branch, with each branch responsible ultimately to the people. The Framers also
provided for a Judicial Branch equally independent with "[the] judicial Power .
.. . [extending] to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States." Art. III, § 2.

Other, more subtle, examples of separated powers are evident as well. Unlike
parliamentary systems such as that of Great Britain, no person who is an
officer of the United States may serve as a Member of the Congress. Art. I, §
6. Moreover, unlike parliamentary systems, the President, under Article II, is
responsible not to the Congress but to the people, subject only to impeachment
proceedings which are exercised by the two Houses as representatives of the
people. Art. II, § 4. And even in the impeachment of a President the presiding
officer of the ultimate tribunal is not a member of the Legislative Branch, but
the Chief Justice of the United States. Art. I, § 3.

[6]That this system of division and separation of powers produces conflicts,
confusion, and discordance at times is inherent, but it was deliberately so
structured to assure full, vigorous, and open debate on the great issues
affecting the people and to provide avenues for the operation of checks on the
exercise of governmental power.

]The Constitution does not contemplate an active role for Congress in the
supervision of officers charged with the execution of the laws it enacts. The
President appoints "Officers of the United States" with the "Advice and Consent
of the Senate. . . ." Art. II, § 2. Once the appointment has been made and
confirmed, however, the Constitution explicitly provides for removal of Officers
of the United States by Congress only upon impeachment by the House of
Representatives and conviction by the Senate. An impeachment by the House and
trial by the Senate can rest only on "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors." Art. II, § 4. A direct congressional role in the removal of
officers charged with the execution of the laws beyond this limited one is
inconsistent with separation of powers.

BOWSHER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES v. SYNAR, MEMBER OF CONGRESS,
ET AL.
No. 85-1377
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
478 U.S. 714; 106 S. Ct. 3181; 92 L. Ed. 2d 583; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 141; 54
U.S.L.W. 5064


Vince

From: "Tarver Engineering"


Well then Brannigan, you clearly never had a sufficient understanding of the
Constitution to puvblish anything WRT the Constitution.

Begin quote

Vincent Brannigan


Vincent Brannigan

Professor, J.D.
Professor Vincent Brannigan holds his Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown
University and is a member of the Maryland and D.C. Bars. He has been a full
time faculty member at the University of Maryland since 1977. Prior to joining
the faculty, he worked at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National
Fire Prevention and Control Administration and the Center for Fire Research at
the National Bureau of Standards. He authored the legal materials for the Open
Learning Fire Service Program and has been an adjunct faculty member at the US
Fire Academy since it was founded.

Professor Brannigan's primary research and teaching areas are product liability
and government regulation of technology, with a special emphasis on the problem
of dealing with novel technologies. He has been a consultant on technology and
the law to the Office of Technology Assessment and other federal agencies and
has assisted numerous local regulatory officials.

end quote

Source: http://www.cee.umd.edu/fireprotect/f...Brannigan.html

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

LOL at Tarver!!! Read what Fred is saying for crying out loud! You
guys are going back and forth like a coupla kids!
Nice to see I'm not the only one that sees some loss of comprehension
on his part!

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:28:42 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..
: "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
:
: :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
: :news : : "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
: : .. .
: : : "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :"John R Weiss" wrote in message
: : : :news:ZHsYb.331816$I06.3436307@attbi_s01...
: : : : "Tarver Engineering" wrote...
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : When is the CinC not Military?
: : : :
: : : : If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the
:President of the United
: : : : States.
: : : :
: : : : If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.
: : : :
: : : :I am refering to the Constitutional authority delegated to the
:President.
: : :
: : : Which does not make him 'military' any more than the Secretary of
: : : Defense is 'military' or the Secretary of the Navy is 'a sailor'.
: : :
: : :The DoD is delegated Congressional authority and extra Constitutional
:in
: : :nature.
: :
: : False.
: :
: :Show me the DoD in the constitution.
:
: Show me Tarver in the Constitution. That's doesn't make you "extra
: Constitutional in nature".
:
: See Article II, Section 2.
:
:Article II Section 2 proves my contention, but has zero to do with what you
:wrote, Fred.

Work on that reading comprehension, Tarver.

"fudog50" wrote in message
...
LOL at Tarver!!! Read what Fred is saying for crying out loud! You
guys are going back and forth like a coupla kids!

Fred is ****ing up a rope.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
:
: :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
: .. .
: :
: : Work on that reading comprehension, Tarver.
: :
: :I have no such problem, Fred.
: :
: :The DoD is Congressional Authority delegated to the Executive. There is
:no
: oD in the US Constitution.
:
: No, the DoD is an EXECUTIVE agency, so it can hardly be "Congressional
: Authority".
:
:What color is the sky in your world, Fred?

Well, my world is called 'Earth' and the country under discussion is
named "the United States of America". I'm not sure where the ****
you're coming from, but it is obviously someplace quite different.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn