Trump Budget Proposes Killing All Funding for PBS, NPR and National Endowment for the Arts

Only happened once in my lifetime and that was BvG where they made a partisan political decision.

Up to you to prove that the decisions don't have a constitutional basis.

 

BZZZT Wrong!

Thomas is a conservative and he ruled to hand over judicial power to the executive branch which is the direct violation of the original intent of the constitution.

 

Specifics to which you refer, please.

 

Hamdi vs Rumsfeld.

The Bush regime wanted the executive power to detain US citizens without due process.

In the 8-1 decision against the Bush regime Thomas as the only one who sided with granting these unconstitutional powers to the executive branch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld#Thomas_dissent

 

Thomas voted to allow a temporary power to wage war. That's all. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus.

 

Since no war had been declared by Congress therefore it was NOT a "temporary power".

Secondly it was Congress, not Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus. The executive branch does not have that power but Thomas was violating the original intent of the Constitution by trying to give to the Bush/Cheney regime.

 

After declaring martial law, Lincoln issued an order to his commanders to suspend the writ, the House later Introduced a bill, (which started as an indemnity bill releasing the President from liability for having Suspended habeas W/O congressional approval..).it was passed, & around a month later it passed the senate, & was signed into law a few months later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Suspension_Act_1863

 

Thank you for confirming that the executive branch does not have the power to suspend habeas corpus.

Yes, what Lincoln did was an overreach just as the Bush/Cheney regime was an overreach. In each case it took one of the other 3 branches to redress the balance.

Thomas voted to violate the original intent of the balance of powers.

 

I was just clarifying the situation. Many things are done by elected officials, that either get them ousted, or prompt massive booty covering.

Great system.

EDIT: point of fact, Lincoln DID suspend Habeaous... Congress covered his fanny later.

 

Agreed!

Bush/Cheney violated the Constitution and 8 SCOTUS justices set them straight.

 

To raise the level of intelligence in the discussion the righties do need to step out, whining and lies don't progress the conversation...

 

Your "side" has created a delusion, since clearly, after pages and pages of asking for evidence, we've received not one iota of it, supporting the inane and vacuous assertion that PBS is biased.

Just because you happen to disagree with some facts doesn't mean they are not factual. Just because some facts are presented as facts does not mean something is biased.

The constant here is YOU, and your political ideology. You lot are choosing to believe a conspiracy, with no evidence.

Sounds like faith to me, and faith is blind.

 

Remember you are arguing with yourself not me, I have claimed no bias at PBS nor any conspiracies. I have asked for some evidence of the balance like a story debunking AGW and perhaps some reporting on the falsified data. You got any?

 

Why would PBS publish unsupported scientific hypothesis? Keep in mind, you yourself said the climate changes.

I'm trying to keep the politics out of this. Climate change isn't political. It doesn't give a **** who you voted for, no matter what some of the pundits tell you.

 

Federalist Paper 41 directly addresses the welfare clause and proves the supreme court is wrong. Any more misunderstandings of the Constitution I can clear up for you?

 

The Federalist Papers are influencing papers written to ratify the constitution, not the only relative interpretation of the constitution in the history of our country. Additionally, the Federalist Papers are themselves not Law, so your point is absolutely moot.

 

Something written 200 years ago is your feeble response?

Here's a big hint for you...the federalist papers are NOT the Law of the Land!

 

No. And you stated a definition. But won't show where you get such a definition. And try to claim they are less activist than progressive.
But in reality, a judge is bipartisan.

 

What color is the sky in your decerebrate world?

 

Aren't those merely opinions, in a debate?

 

Blue, when the sun is shining and no clouds.
Gray when heavily overcast.
At certain times of day, there can be orange to red color as well.

When no sun is shining and it has set, it is usually black.

 

Still waiting on evidence, here.

 

"Conflating"? Do you even know what the word means? Now go study up on what the Tax and Spend clause is all about, funding government operations and financial obligations.

 

The Federalist Papers explain the Constitution. You don't like them because they pretty much destroy every argument you have.

 

The Constitution was written 230 years ago. I guess you dismiss it simply because it is "old". But what am I thinking, of course you dismiss everything that stands between imposing a dictatorial "progressive" system on the USA.