5 ms·
The Constitution provides for checks&balances. This violates the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). It is unconstitutional like so many of t
by locopati 2y ago
The Constitution provides for checks&balances. This violates the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). It is unconstitutional like so many of these executive orders that violate the 1st and 4th Amendments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause
- ty6853 2y agoI find it hard to believe every employee accessing the system without a congressional appointment is violating the constitution. Perhaps that is the case but I haven't heard a peep from constitutional watchdogs until now. Can you explain why it's suddenly unconstitutional when the US digital service employees access it?
- locopati 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- scarab92 2y agoIt’s not fascism to hold the belief that the size of the federal government should be reduced. The left love name calling and I don’t think they realise how immature it makes them look to other voters.
- locopati 2y ago[flagged]
- scarab92 2y ago> fascism, white supremacists I'm sure calling them these names makes sense in your echo chambers, but to the overwhelming majority of people these are inaccurate and inappropriate labels. Calling people things which they are not, does not hurt their reputation, it simply makes your fringe of the political spectrum look immature.