If a presidential office you Care About Has a Personality Condition If you are with a POTUS with a personality condition such as narcissism, then you may have similar unfulfilled relationship issues, as well as the added bonus of emotional abuse. Following are some suggestions for coping with this type of relationship: Observe the POTUS’ behavior, don’t absorb it. Understand that a POTUS with narcissism does not cooperate or collaborate well; you will have to learn to be independent in this type of relationship. Do not expect the POTUS to ever have empathy or compassion for you. Develop healthy, happy connections within other countries. Don’t expect them in your relationship with the POTUS with narcissism. Recognize that your POTUS may derive pleasure from hurting you. Why may be difficult to understand. Study the concept of “narcissistic supply” and you will discover that people with narcissism are “fed” by the reactions they get. It may help the POTUS feel in control, superior, or powerful. Realize you may not be able to teach a POTUS with narcissism how to be different. No matter how much patience and perseverance you have, you may discover nothing works to change the POTUS. You can only change yourself. Research and study personality conditions and learn to have compassion for yourself.
Associate Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has voted with the liberal wing of the court and believes that illegal immigrants should be treated the same as criminals under criminal statutes. This flies in the face of The Conservative Principle. These illegal immigrants need to be deported immediately. They are not to be afforded protections under criminal law statutes -----those are reserved for CITIZENS. ---This is a huge letdown.
If you counted how many time you have been "letdown" Buyoneandstop , that may be a very large number of times and might indicate you have terrible judgement.
Some Republican lawmakers are favoring legislation that would prevent President Trump from firing Robert Mueller. If passed, this would be unconstitutional at it's core. It is a president's constitutional right to fire subordinates at any time for any reason. The president, by himself is the totality of the executive branch. It appears that these Republicans need a refresher course on The Constitution. Secondly, Trump has repeatedly indicated that he is not planning on firing Trump. ---Let's be honest---most Republicans are not Conservatives and do not have a working knowledge of the foundation of this country.
I was just thinking that. So Trump would have to argue that the current system of only the AG can remove a special prosecutor is unconstitutional. Then get the Supreme court to agree with that. Or go through one or two AG resignations until he got one who would fire Mueller. But then the special prosecutor can be (re-)appointed by a joint session of congress as happened with Teapot Dome? However right at this minute he does not have clear & absolute authority to fire Mueller?
It's the Constitution. Presidents can fire any subordinate they wish to for any reason and at any time. Any law that Congreff would pass protecting Mueller would be struck down immediately by SCOTUS. --at least for now while the court still has Constitutionals on it. I imagine this one would be even go 9-0 even with the 4 progressives on the court as it's cut and dried. --Make no mistake---Mueller should be fired, but it isn't politically the right thing to do. Although, that may be changing.--Izzy
How unfortunate that the Trump lawyers don't have a constitutional scholar like you on their team. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/can-trump-fire-mueller/ ...There is a good bit of debate and some disagreement among constitutional scholars about the ways the president could remove Mueller if he wanted to, and the legality of such steps. But one thing is clear, it would not be as simple as firing off a termination letter, as the president did to remove FBI Director James Comey...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Laws applied U.S. Const. Article II, Section 2 Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body. In 1920, Frank S. Myers, a First-Class Postmaster in Portland, Oregon, was removed from office by President Woodrow Wilson. An 1876 federal law provided that "Postmasters of the first, second, and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate." Myers argued that his dismissal violated this law, and he was entitled to back pay for the unfilled portion of his four-year term. Chief Justice William Howard Taft, writing for the Court, noted that the Constitution does mention the appointment of officials, but is silent on their dismissal. An examination of the notes of the Constitutional Convention, however, showed that this silence was intentional: the Convention did discuss the dismissal of executive-branch staff, and believed it was implicit in the Constitution that the President did hold the exclusive power to remove his staff, whose existence was an extension of the President's own authority. The Court therefore found that the statute was unconstitutional, for it violated the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. In reaching this decision, it also expressly found the Tenure of Office Act, which had imposed a similar requirement on other Presidential appointees and played a key role in the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, to have been invalid; it had been repealed by Congress some years before this decision.