He's grabbed the power of the president by not letting a bill be voted on "because the president would veto it."

He's grabbed the power of the SCOTUS by declaring a bill "unconstitutional," which is not his role.

What a turtle-faced shit hole.

McConnell proves again how stupid he is not knowing the Constitution. No wonder him and trump are such close buddies. Birds of a feather.

...denied the president's authority under Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.

" (He) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Notwithstanding the Senate's responsibility to 'advise and consent,' the sole power to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, under the Constitution, lies with the President.

Is running some pretty vicious attack ads targeting Amy McGrath already. I live in the Louisville Metro area and haven't seen a one from her yet. I watch very very little tv so that isn't totally unsurprising in and of itself though. He's painting her as an extremely liberal leftist. Amy is anything but that but ole Moscow has a pretty good firm making them I must admit. If you can spare an extra buck or two , sending it her way wouldn't hurt.................

He is sheer ugliness. Outside and inside.

Especially inside.

Torch the Constitution with gasoline this time.

Don't just ignore your duties, proclaim yourself the Supreme Court and rule on aspects of law.

Help us Kentuckians boot this guy once and for all. We've been so close. I'm ashamed to share the same zipcode with this Federalist society infatuated wing nut prick. Old pumpkin head, turtle face has got to go if we are to ever return to a normal progressive society.

Where did this fine tradition go?

The world won't be a better place until he's no longer in it.

And no, that's not a threat to him. I just hope that he croaks soon.

I never thought this way under Dubya.

"You know there are worse ways to go, but I can’t think of a more undignified one than autoerotic asphyxiation."
--The X-Files, "Clyde Bruckman’s Final Repose"

Article I, Section 5(1) provides:

"...a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

A good argument can be made that the only things either house can do in the absence of a quorum are adjourn until a quorum is present and compel truant members to appear.

The counter argument is in the next sentence, Article I, Section 5(2):

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . . ."

My conclusion is that the more specific rule concerning a quorum would control over the general rule-making provision, otherwise there would be no purpose for the specific quorum provision, which would be reduced to mere surplusage.

"...a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

i.e. the House may require absent members to teleconference in. End of discussion.

That being the case, I will not set it out.

If you want to hear the counter argument, let me know.

Obviously, a clause that says the House may require members to attend in such manner as the House decides addresses a different issue (indeed, a completely non-intersecting issue) from a clause that says the House sets the rules for its proceedings -- the former pertains to members who are not participating in the proceedings; the latter pertains to members who are.

when someone claims an asserted position is obviously true, the matter is hardly obvious.

I quoted Article I, Section 5(1): "...a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

Under this provision, a majority of the house constitutes a quorum. Absent a quorum, the only actions the house may take is to adjourn from day to day and to compel the attendance of the truant members.

I also quoted Article I, Section 5(2): "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . . ."

The longstanding definition of "quorum" is the minimum number of a body that must be present for the conduct of business. The question is whether Section 5(2) allows a house to determine by rule that a quorum can be met by proxy or virtual attendance contrary to the usual meaning of "quorum."

It seems to be an interesting question of constitutional history and construction, the final determination of which is hardly obvious.

“...and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

K&R

We all know he is awful in human form, 'nuff said in about 50 other posts involving this asshole over time?