[ Poll ] Who loves Betty Boop?

Love betty?

Total Votes: 0

This poll closed on December 23, 2004.
No longer accepting new votes.

[Gokuson6895]

my wife loves betty boop

[SiddneyyL]

betty boop is a girl lol 4laugh

[Strawberry_Pie1]

omg i love betty boop and 1c i took a quiz and i am like betty boop no lie hehe

[sharonnehtmbou4]

heart heart

Gokuson6895

my wife loves betty boop

[Haine-Chan 15]

I do!!!! excepts she kinda scares me lol sweatdrop

[jessicathai]

i hate betty boop she has weird clothes and its really wierd LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL THATS WHY I HATE HER I HATE HER THIS MUCH EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW THERES MORE ON ANOTHER LINE HAHAHAHHA IM EVIL JOKE S I REALLY HATE HER PEACE OUT

[_masterofdisguise_96]

i love betty boop!!!!!! boop boop boop!!!!!

[XIXAliceCullenXIX]

my mom loves her!!!!!!!!!!!

[pirategf2]

what is Betty bloop

[pirategf2]

how old are you

[anime rules011]

i think i remember betty boop. black hair right?? question question

[mollydog3]

I LOVE BETTY BOOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! heart heart heart
BETTY BOOP IS THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mimi1696]

betty boop sux...

[kisame441]

*hugs**hugs**hugs**hugs**hugs**hu**hugs*hu*hugs*gs*gs**hugs*hugs**hugs***hugs**hugs**hugs**hugs**hugs**hugs**hugs*

[kisame441]

The "Vesting Clause" grants all of the federal government's legislative authority to Congress. Other vesting clauses are found in Articles II and III as well, and differ in respect to the branch of government concerned; Article II's vesting clause vests the President with "the executive power" and Article III's vesting clause vests "the judicial power" in the federal judiciary. The Vesting Clauses thus establish the principle of separation of powers by specifically giving to each branch of the federal government only those powers it can exercise and no others.[1] This means that no branch may exercise powers that properly belong to another (e.g., since the legislative power is vested in Congress, the executive and judiciary may not enact laws).[2] The language "herein granted" in Article I's vesting clause has been interpreted to mean that the powers Congress may exercise are exclusively those specifically provided for in Article I.[3] This contrasts with the general vesting of the executive and judicial powers in Articles II and III in the branches of government those articles govern, which has been interpreted to mean that those branches enjoy "residual" or "implied" powers beyond those specifically mentioned, as contrasted with the Congress, which is vested only with those legislative powers "herein granted;"[4] however, there is substantial contemporary disagreement about the precise extent of the powers conferred by the general vesting clauses.

As a corollary to the fact that Congress, and only Congress, is vested with the legislative power, Congress (in theory) cannot delegate legislative authority to other branches of government (e.g., the Executive Branch), a rule known as the nondelegation doctrine.[5] However, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress does have latitude to delegate regulatory powers to executive agencies as long as it provides an "intelligible principle" which governs the agency's exercise of the delegated regulatory authority.[6] In practice, the Supreme Court has only invalidated 3 statutes on non-delegation grounds in its history, all 3 of which were invalidated in the mid-1930s.[7] The nondelegation doctrine is primarily used now as a way of interpreting a congressional delegation of authority narrowly,[8] in that the courts presume Congress intended only to delegate that which it certainly could have, unless it clearly demonstrates it intended to "test the waters" of what the courts would allow it to do.[9]

Although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, Congress has also long asserted the power to investigate and the power to compel cooperation with an investigation.[10] The Supreme Court has affirmed these powers as an implication of Congress' power to legislate.[11] Since the power to investigate is an aspect of Congress' power to legislate, it is as broad as Congress' powers to legislate.[12] However, it is also limited to inquiries that are "in aid of the legislative function;"[13] Congress may not "expose for the sake of exposure."[14] It is uncontroversial that a proper subject of Congress' investigation power is the operations of the federal government, but Congress' ability to compel the submission of documents or testimony from the President or his subordinates is often-discussed and sometimes controversial (see executive privilege), although not often litigated. As a practical matter, the limitation of Congress' ability to investigate only for a proper purpose ("in aid of" its legislative powers) functions as a limit on Congress' ability to investigate the private affairs of individual citizens; matters that simply demand action by another branch of government, without implicating an issue of public policy necessitating legislation by Congress, must be left to those branches due to the doctrine of separation of powers.[15] The courts are highly deferential to Congress' exercise of its investigation powers, however. Congress has the power to investigate that which it could regulate,[12] and the courts have interpreted Congress' regulatory powers broadly since the Great Depression. Additionally, the courts will not inquire into whether Congress has an improper motive for an investigation (i.e., using a legitimate legislative purpose as a cover for "expos[ing] for the sake of exposure" wink , focusing only on whether the matter is within Congress' power to regulate and, thus, investigate.[16] Persons called before a congressional investigatory committee are entitled to the constitutional guarantees of individual rights, such as those in the Bill of Rights.[17] Congress can punish those who do not cooperate with an investigation via holding violators in contempt.[18]