Russia Investigation Heating Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

I know you're not questioning that part. I'm just pointing out that the reason it's considered to be implied is simply because the phrase "congressional oversight" isn't there. But if you read it, it enumerates concrete, literal examples of Congressional oversight into the Executive.

Candidly, PK and Tgo both have the reading comprehension and reasoning skills of a cocker spaniel- so I'm willing to agree that they wouldn't get that Congressional oversight describes the enumerated powers of Congress.

But a normal person would.

---

Oh man, time4fun slamming Androidpk to own Tgo. This is one of the better days of the PC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

I know you're not questioning that part. I'm just pointing out that the reason it's considered to be implied is simply because the phrase "congressional oversight" isn't there. But if you read it, it enumerates concrete, literal examples of Congressional oversight into the Executive.

Candidly, PK and Tgo both have the reading comprehension and reasoning skills of a cocker spaniel- so I'm willing to agree that they wouldn't get that Congressional oversight describes the enumerated powers of Congress.

But a normal person would. So basically you and PK are both right

---

No, no... Pk isn't correct at all. Reading the Consitution will make no mention of Congressional Oversight. I know you want to protect your retarded younger brother here, but stop trying to twist and stretch things that far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

No, no... Pk isn't correct at all. Reading the Consitution will make no mention of Congressional Oversight. I know you want to protect your retarded younger brother here, but stop trying to twist and stretch things that far.

---

Um. The phrase doesn't appear.

Impeachment, advise and consent, and necessary and proper are all EXPLICIT examples of Congressional oversight of the Executive.

Anyone who read the Constitution and concluded that there is no Congressional oversight of the Executive would be factually incorrect because the language, on it's face, describes exactly that.

You're smarter than this. This isn't the same situation as Judicial immunity, for example.

Let me give you an analogous situation:

Store sign:. We sell apples, oranges, and peaches!

Person 1: If you read the sign, you'll see it clearly states that they sell fruit

Gelston: AHA you fool- it doesn't explicitly say they sell fruit! Merely reading the sign doesn't tell you that!

Person 1: You need to stop drinking Gelston. I'm worried about you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

Let me give you an analogous situation:

Store sign:. We sell apples, oranges, and peaches!

Person 1: If you read the sign, you'll see it clearly states that they sell fruit

Gelston: AHA you fool- it doesn't explicitly say they sell fruit! Merely reading the sign doesn't tell you that!

Person 1: You need to stop drinking Gelston. I'm worried about you.

---

That isnt at all like this conversation, but okay. Enjoy my new sig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Stop projecting. It’s stale and time to move onto something new.

Perhaps a job would be a good place to start.

---

Why would he start now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Yes, that's what it's called, that's one of Congress' functions. I know you and parkbandit are really confused about how government works but that's okay, maybe you guys can take a couple of community college classes on the subject together!

---

#2 and #5...

Well done.

Congress' enumerated powers grant it oversight over the executive branch. It's one of the basic functions of the checks and balances system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

Let me give you an analogous situation:

Store sign:. We sell apples, oranges, and peaches!

Person 1: If you read the sign, you'll see it clearly states that they sell fruit

Gelston: AHA you fool- it doesn't explicitly say they sell fruit! Merely reading the sign doesn't tell you that!

Person 1: You need to stop drinking Gelston. I'm worried about you.

---

Isn't your analogy backwards?

It would be more like.

Store sign: We sell fruit!
Person 1: Do you sell apples?
Androidpk: LOL! R U DUM?! It says we sell apples!
Person 1: No it doesn't, it says you sell fruit, do you sell ALL fruit?
time4fun: NO1 NOWS HOW TO RED BUT ME!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

#2 and #5...

Well done.

---

2+5 = 7, the number of Supreme Court Justices!