No one "got" him to censor himself. Rather, he simply got himself into a position that he couldn't answer a legitimate question about his asertion that Congress is required to be in session when a Bill is signed. Originally, he posted that a particular law was in-valid due to it having been signed while Congress was adjourned and in trying to contribute to the thread I asked him to provide verbage from the Constitution that states Congress must be in session for a Bill to be able to be signed into law. Instead, all I got was a run-around that consisted solely of his own personal opinion and then when asked further he acts like Cartman and storms off after locking the thread. He cannot provide the answer I was asking for because that requirement does not exist in the Constitution. Congress has been adjourning prior to Bills being signed for as long as there's been a Congress. If Palani is so correct, he should sue the gov and get all the laws overturned where Congress was adjourned when the POTUS signed them.