Lots of very rich people, it’s the airport for Vail.
Nobody on the Hill is drinking tap water, if it helps.
I’m all for trimming defense spending and such, but I don’t think refusing to replenish a depleted arsenal is the way to do that. They gotta have stuff to shoot.
As always with CRS: you’ve got very specific and obscure questions, we’ve got very specific and obscure answers
This discusses the modern history including some cases where an initial seating was then undone rather than seating nobody while the dispute was pending, but the former was more commonly done in 19th / early 20th C. cases.
No way that’s a meaningful sample size for non-binary.
Newsom is individually the most likely nominee at this point, but that doesn’t mean much when the chances are so split across a fractured field. In other words, it’s the field over Newsom by far even though I don’t think any one person is clearly ahead of him.
A reminder of how truly arbitrary our social constructs of race are, though granted the black and white photo obscures the difference in skin tone.
Priced in because it was already reasonably apparent Powell will finish his term, the Supreme Court has already said the Fed is their special boy they're going to carve out from overturning Humphrey's, and also Warsh is a relatively normal nominee to replace Powell, not floridly insane.
We joke about it but she really is very obviously shitfaced.
An astounding statement from a federal judge about the executive branch, generally; the Justice Department, more particularly; and these subpoenas, specifically.
Wondering why Democrants aren't pursuing impeachment even though they have the power to?
It's because leadership will call you names if you try to uphold your oath of office.
Seriously.
metrotimes.com/topic/views-...
Other than each house has the power as to "its" members so that wouldn't extend across different Congresses. Which is why the lame duck Congress will have no power over who gets seated in and by the next Congress.
Yeah there's precedent and I think it's the most natural reading of the clause. It says each house has the power, there's no time constraint on that or that they cease to have the power at some point.
There were also a handful of early cases where (maybe, for some of them) underage members were seated but it just went unnoticed at the time.
Practice has varied. Sometimes they have been seated at first, other times not.
Though again if you expand it to returns, and I see no reason to think those are different in the qualifications and returns clause, then there are cases where it's gone both ways.
No, except that the second rejection of Berger was mid-session because he'd again won the special election.
Once on qualifications, a bunch of times on election disputes.
But there are lots of cases under the same power re: judging election returns where a house has seated somebody and then later decided their election was invalid.
Yes. The one precedent for somebody who was seated and then later un-seated as ineligible is Gallatin, by the Senate in 1794.
As for presidential qualifications, I'd argue not just that Congress can do that under 14AS3 but that Congress has always had the power to decide who they recognize as the real legitimate president, simply as a matter of directing its own actions re: who to send bills to, etc.
It's happened (in what was a totally spurious and abusive case) with Victor Berger, on the nonsense theory that his conviction for opposing World War I was covered. Milwaukee kept reelecting him anyway.
In 1794, the Senate decided Albert Gallatin didn't satisfy the nine year citizenship requirement and so un-seated him after he'd been seated and participating for a few months.
To be a bit fair to Truman, he also thinks that realization motivated Truman to establish strict and exclusive presidential control, which wasn’t an obvious given.
Congress as a 14AS5 exercise could define the applicability of de facto officer doctrine to, in effect, re-adopt or ratify such actions as it'd be impractical and undesirable to treat as null.
The Teller Amendment is technically still on the books, it's never been repealed. 30 Stat. 738 (Joint Res. 24)
"the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island..."
I think the problem is more that it became toothless after Chadha, but some have made that case.
Alex Wellerstein has done some really good digging on it and I think makes a compelling case.
Nuking a city intentionally in that context can be endlessly debated, but nuking a city because you misunderstood that it was a city is a pretty unsympathetic story no matter what.
