Obama prepares to shred Constitution (a little)

[Chris]

Look. Here's one now. Two failed wars, huh? Seems to me we are withdrawing troops from one, and the other was quite successful.

The 3000 Americans dead on American soil from a plan hatched during the 90s?

*Yawn* re: the economy. It's been going tits-up for decades, and once again, it was YOUR boys that loosened the lending practices.

American cities have been destroyed by hurricanes as long as there have been American cities and hurricanes. That argumment is lame as well. Had Nagin and Blanco been Republicans, REPUBLICANS would have hung their asses out to dry.

In other words, you're full of shit. Lameass talking points consisting of baseless rhetoric.

Oh, and if Obama is taking charge NOW, I'm critiquing his ass NOW. And don't try to pull anything on me. You won't be critiquing him Jan 20 09, 10, 11, or 12.

4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded, and $700 billion dollars wasted to establish a Shia government in Iraq allied with Iran.

Wow, what a success!

 

[DavidS]

You know... what's left of it I mean.

VIOLATOR

From NBC’s Pete Williams


Check the link. Obama would not be the first in this little faux pas. Nixon and LBJ and Clinton had a go of it among a few others. It's really more of a tiny scratch than a "shred" but who would want to read about that?

It's going to be a fun four years.

Are you serious? We've lost so many rights over the past 8 years and you're complaining about a little footnote in the constitution that says you can't nominate someone from congress to your cabinet??

When you start going over the Patriot Act, I'll take you seriously.

 

[DavidS]

Look. Here's one now. Two failed wars, huh? Seems to me we are withdrawing troops from one, and the other was quite successful.

We're withdrawing troops from one because we're there longer. Adding an additional 50,000 troops didn't do much of anything. Violence was down in Iraq before the surge. And uh, what exactly did we do in Afghanistan again? Great, we've captured a few mid-high ranking Al Queda and Taliban operatives, but Al Queda is still going strong in other regions of the world, bin Laden and his #2 guy are still on the loose, the Taliban is re-organizing and there have been more attacks on US troops this year than any other year in Afghanistan. Oh and just to add to your little victory dance, Chairman Karzi wants to know when we're leaving Afghanistan.

We should've left Iraq alone and gone into Pakistan with India's help in exchange for Kashmir. Then we should've gone into Syria, uncuffed Israel's hands and let them do whatever they wanted in Gaza and the West Bank and islamic terrorism would be dead right now.

 

[DiveCon]

Are you serious? We've lost so many rights over the past 8 years and you're complaining about a little footnote in the constitution that says you can't nominate someone from congress to your cabinet??

When you start going over the Patriot Act, I'll take you seriously.

uh, what rights have you lost?

 

[del]

uh, what rights have you lost?

you know. all those ones in the patriot act.

 

[DiveCon]

you know. all those ones in the patriot act.

OH!!! THOSE rights

 

[del]

OH!!! THOSE rights

them's the ones; it really was a piece of shit legislation, but except for not being able to sign a check over to someone else, i haven't felt particularly oppressed by it. would have been nice if someone had read the damn thing before they voted it into law, though.

 

[DiveCon]

them's the ones; it really was a piece of shit legislation, but except for not being able to sign a check over to someone else, i haven't felt particularly oppressed by it. would have been nice if someone had read the damn thing before they voted it into law, though.

so, that was the only right you lost?
i didnt lose any

 

[del]

so, that was the only right you lost?
i didnt lose any

it's the only one i noticed, and i'm not sure which amendment covers check cashing, anyway.

 

[Tristan]

Are you serious? We've lost so many rights over the past 8 years and you're complaining about a little footnote in the constitution that says you can't nominate someone from congress to your cabinet??

When you start going over the Patriot Act, I'll take you seriously.

No. Not serious, very tounge in cheek.

You can nominate someone from Congress into your cabinet. (just not someone who voted for a pay raise for that post while in Congress)

Unlike the "so many rights over the past 8 years" we have "lost" this one comes with proof.

I don't consider any part of the Constitution a "footnote".

This thread is not about the Patriot Act whatever you think that is.

 

[DiveCon]

No. Not serious, very tounge in cheek.

You can nominate someone from Congress into your cabinet. (just not someone who voted for a pay raise for that post while in Congress)

Unlike the "so many rights over the past 8 years" we have "lost" this one comes with proof.

I don't consider any part of the Constitution a "footnote".

This thread is not about the Patriot Act whatever you think that is.

i do believe that she can take the post but cant get the pay increase
so she would have to take the pay that was previous to her vote

 

[Tristan]

i do believe that she can take the post but cant get the pay increase
so she would have to take the pay that was previous to her vote

That's a workaround, not a solution.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 6 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

The usual workaround is for Congress to lower the salary of the job back to what it was so that the nominee can take it without receiving the benefit of the pay increase that was approved while the nominee was in Congress. This maneuver, which has come to be known as "the Saxbe fix," addresses the clear intent of the Constitution, to prevent self-dealing.

But many legal scholars believe it does not cure the Constitutional problem, because the language of Article I is so clearly an absolute prohibition: No senator or representative, period.

"The content of the rule here is broader than its purpose,” said Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, a Constitutional law expert at St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. “And the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule.”

"A 'fix' can rescind the salary,” he added, “but it cannot repeal historical events. The emoluments of the office had been increased. The rule specified in the text still controls.”

Anyway the point was to poke fun, while sending a message to Libs, that bleating about lost constitutional rights need be accompanied with some proof thereof. (and Obama is not even the POTUS yet, lol)

 

[Esta_PG]

I believe it happened once before and the congressman agreed to take the prior un-increased salary. I thought I read that somewhere during the initial Hilary buzz on November 6th or so.

 

[editec]

From NBC’s Pete Williams

If President-elect Barack Obama nominates Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state, many legal scholars believe it would be the former law professor's first violation of the Constitution as president.

Why? Because the Constitution forbids the appointment of members of Congress to administration jobs if the salary of the job they'd take was raised while they were in Congress. (Article I, Section 6: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office ... the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."

Wow, interesting catch.

Yeah, this could be a problem for Obama's appointment of Hillary.

Wonder how they're going to deal with this?

Decrease the salary?

I'm sure Hillary can afford the pay cut.

Nice thread starter there, Tristan.

 

[InfiniteBeauty]

We have our Constitution protected we have it and scanned as well...
so it's protected.

 

[del]

We have our Constitution protected we have it and scanned as well...
so it's protected.

well i certainly feel safer knowing you're there.
thank you.

 

[rayboyusmc]

There's no tongue in cheek with the foamers at the mouthes around here. They laugh at only their own jokes. You have to understand the rules.

1 Don't question Obama
2. Don't question anything Obama says or does
3. Don't question his associations
4. Don't even LOOK at Obama.

You sound more and more like Pogo.

More of your putting your sound bites in someone elses mouth.

 

[Tristan]

I believe it happened once before and the congressman agreed to take the prior un-increased salary. I thought I read that somewhere during the initial Hilary buzz on November 6th or so.

I know it's happened before and more than once. (and know the workaround to try and "fix" the problem) But then I have the unfair advantage of having read the article in the OP.

 

[Esta_PG]

I know it's happened before and more than once. (and know the workaround to try and "fix" the problem) But then I have the unfair advantage of having read the article in the OP.

Aha! Just realized the word "violator" in the OP was a link to the article. Aren't you sweet for pointing that out.

What's the latest on this? I know Robert Byrd's office started exploring the constitutionality of HRC as Secretary of State, but there hasn't been much press beyond that. Anybody with insider information? I've been out of the loop in Canada for the past couple weeks.

Thanks, and happy posting.

 

[Charles_Main]

He's gonna rape your daughters now? And you Cons wonder why you lost the election so badly

52 to 49 is so badly now?

Please.

You dems would do well to remember that almost half the Nation was not for your guy. 57 Million people voted for the other guy.

The election was hardly a land slide, unless you look solely at the electoral college numbers.

You best not forget that. Get to cocky and the Dems time in power will be short lived indeed.