Dancing again.<quoted text>
Call me when they change the outcome of any election.
Manchild claimed the people vote for the president.
Manchild then claimed that the people vote for the electors who elect the president.
Now he claims that the Electoral College don't, and can't, vote for whoever they want.
Dance, dance and dance some more, manchild.
And it includes the twelfth amendment. Which states you do not vote for the president.<quoted text>
YOu don't have an constitution.
Show me where I ever claimed you did not vote.<quoted text>
You insist I didn't vote and now you insist the vote I cast didn't matter.
Don't bother - you will not find it because once again you are making up strawmen.
Face it, manchild: the twelfth amendment owns you.
Which is like saying "odd that Jeff would have a car if he wasn't a car".<quoted text>
Odd that the UK would have a monarch if it wasn't a monarchy.
Odd that manchild has a computer if he wasn't a computer.
Odd that the United States would have a president if it was not a republic.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
Analogies: the holy water of manchildren.
If the monarch disapproves then she would veto the bills.<quoted text>
Funny how the Parliament would submit the bills to the Queen and Prince Chuck and ask before they passed them.
If the monarch disapproves, the Parliament withdraws the bills or changes them.
I guess you skipped over that, eh?
To date she hasn't.
What is there to skip over?
I knew that you would run to this sooner or later.<quoted text>No, SuperFAG.
Knowing the monarch can refuse anything they send to him or her means they consult with the monarch and ask pretty please, will you sign this bill? and if the monarch sas NO... they don't send it or they change it.
"in one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament."
Gosh... looks like assent to people who speak English.
Read some more:
"The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government, refused to grant her consent for the Bill to be debated. The second reading was initially postponed from 16 April until 23 July 1999. Due to the Crown's continuing refusal to signify its consent to the Bill being debated, it could not receive its second reading on 23 July 1999. In the absence of a request for a further postponement, the Bill was automatically dropped before it obtained its second reading.
When military action against Iraq was eventually organised in 2003, the government sought Parliamentary approval on 18 March 2003, one day before the invasion began, although no powers under the royal prerogative were thereby transferred to Parliament."
What was that?:
"The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government..."
Once again, like with Macmillan, you think the Queen acted on her own when she did not.
The bill you cling to was a private member's bill by a rebel group of Labour backbenchers. The same party that was in government at the time.
Blair and his cabinet specifically told the Queen to reject the bill and she obliged.
Still lying like a coward.<quoted text>SuperFAG writes: