LoBiando Doesn't KNOW The Constitution...

[bodecea]

Nope...show us where whatever a state constitution says would trump what the U.S. Constitution says on the issue, tho. I look forward to your next amusing statement.

How many times are you going to lose this same argument?

And of course? The electeds had to fulfill certain prerequisites to get elected. And don't bother arguing with it. She's well known for changing the framing of the argument. It's a typical tactic.

Maybe you can show us where what a State Constitution says can trump what the U.S. Constitution says. Try to find the time between drinks.

 

[The T]

Boredtaseeya? Grab your steelydan and go fuck yerself.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUkBOuFJgr4"]YouTube - GINO VANNELLI - Persona Non Grata[/ame]

 

[bodecea]

Boredtaseeya? Grab your steelydan and go fuck yerself.

YouTube - GINO VANNELLI - Persona Non Grata

Just because that is how you deal with your sexual needs after drinking, doesn't mean the rest of us are reduced to our own hand, Tommy.

(BTW...noticed that you STILL cannot show where State Constitutions can trump the U.S. Constitution....but that is your MO, when you've got nothing, you deflect and insult and drink)

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Nope...show us where whatever a state constitution says would trump what the U.S. Constitution says on the issue, tho. I look forward to your next amusing statement.

How many times are you going to lose this same argument?

Show us where it says what a state constitution says trumps the U.S. Constitution. Still waiting (and just declaring some kind of victory without proving squat just makes you look silly(ier))

As a matter of fact it makes you look even more retarded. I'll post this again and I suggest you READ it.

"Recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office"

"A state senator was recalled in 1913. In 1914, one senator was recalled and another survived a recall attempt"
"Recall efforts against two Michigan state senators in 1983 were successful - for the first time in that state's history. An Oregon state legislator was recalled in 1988."

Recall of State Officials

 

[bodecea]

How many times are you going to lose this same argument?

Show us where it says what a state constitution says trumps the U.S. Constitution. Still waiting (and just declaring some kind of victory without proving squat just makes you look silly(ier))

As a matter of fact it makes you look even more retarded. I'll post this again and I suggest you READ it.

"Recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office"

"A state senator was recalled in 1913. In 1914, one senator was recalled and another survived a recall attempt"
"Recall efforts against two Michigan state senators in 1983 were successful - for the first time in that state's history. An Oregon state legislator was recalled in 1988."

Recall of State Officials

Let me help you with bold print...STATE....let me spell it slowly....S....T....A....T....E...legislators. We were discussing FEDERAL.....F....E....D....E....R....A....L legislators and the U.S Constitution.


So...with all that....we are STILL waiting for someone to show how a state constitution can trump the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Show us where it says what a state constitution says trumps the U.S. Constitution. Still waiting (and just declaring some kind of victory without proving squat just makes you look silly(ier))

As a matter of fact it makes you look even more retarded. I'll post this again and I suggest you READ it.

"Recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office"

"A state senator was recalled in 1913. In 1914, one senator was recalled and another survived a recall attempt"
"Recall efforts against two Michigan state senators in 1983 were successful - for the first time in that state's history. An Oregon state legislator was recalled in 1988."

Recall of State Officials

Let me help you with bold print...STATE....let me spell it slowly....S....T....A....T....E...legislators. We were discussing FEDERAL.....F....E....D....E....R....A....L legislators and the U.S Constitution.


So...with all that....we are STILL waiting for someone to show how a state constitution can trump the U.S. Constitution.

No one here has suggested the States' Constitution can trump the US Constitution you stupid fuck. But obviously you don't pay attention to the legal proceedings going on in the US.

In New Jersey a Tea Party group has won the first round in recalling US Senator Robert Menendez. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of recalling a U.S. Senator. But the Appeals Court stated, "Given the will of the people embodied in our state organic law, and the dearth of clear precedent nullifying the people's enactments, we accordingly decline at this juncture to find our state constitutional provision and related stature permitting recall of a United States Senator to be unconstitutional," The Court went on to say, "The silence of the federal Constitution [on recall] may well result in the conclusion that it may be done."

The Court took pains to say its decision is not "definitively valid or invalid," and in fact put a stay on its own decision until lawyers for Senator Menendez can appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, the Court was definitive in ordering the current Secretary of State to allow the petition effort of the Tea Party to move forward, should the State Supreme Court agree

Menendez’s attorney and the state Attorney General’s Office have argued the U.S. Constitution trumps both the state constitution and state law, which permit the recall of federal officials. The federal Constitution neither permits nor prohibits such recall efforts.

But the Constitution’s silence is a signal the state’s law and constitution are valid, according to the Committee to Recall Senator Menendez, which is backed by the New Jersey chapter of the conservative Tea Party movement.

 

[bodecea]

As a matter of fact it makes you look even more retarded. I'll post this again and I suggest you READ it.

"Recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office"

"A state senator was recalled in 1913. In 1914, one senator was recalled and another survived a recall attempt"
"Recall efforts against two Michigan state senators in 1983 were successful - for the first time in that state's history. An Oregon state legislator was recalled in 1988."

Recall of State Officials

Let me help you with bold print...STATE....let me spell it slowly....S....T....A....T....E...legislators. We were discussing FEDERAL.....F....E....D....E....R....A....L legislators and the U.S Constitution.


So...with all that....we are STILL waiting for someone to show how a state constitution can trump the U.S. Constitution.

No one here has suggested the States' Constitution can trump the US Constitution you stupid fuck. But obviously you don't pay attention to the legal proceedings going on in the US.

Wow....you and others MOST CERTAINLY WERE....and anyone looking back at the posts in question can see that.

In New Jersey a Tea Party group has won the first round in recalling US Senator Robert Menendez. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of recalling a U.S. Senator. But the Appeals Court stated, "Given the will of the people embodied in our state organic law, and the dearth of clear precedent nullifying the people's enactments, we accordingly decline at this juncture to find our state constitutional provision and related stature permitting recall of a United States Senator to be unconstitutional," The Court went on to say, "The silence of the federal Constitution [on recall] may well result in the conclusion that it may be done."

Silence means consent? Maybe it means they haven't had a case to decide yet. But I welcome the crazy teabaggers' attempt at recalling a U.S. Senator. Let everyone in New Jersey see how loony they are....and in New Jersey, that's saying a lot.

The Court took pains to say its decision is not "definitively valid or invalid," and in fact put a stay on its own decision until lawyers for Senator Menendez can appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, the Court was definitive in ordering the current Secretary of State to allow the petition effort of the Tea Party to move forward, should the State Supreme Court agree

You are aware, I hope, that allowing a petition effort to continue is NOT agreement that something is Constitutional. Prop 187 here in CA went thru the entire process, was voted on and passed by about 65% about 10-15 years ago...and was immediately declared unConstitutional.

Menendez’s attorney and the state Attorney General’s Office have argued the U.S. Constitution trumps both the state constitution and state law, which permit the recall of federal officials. The federal Constitution neither permits nor prohibits such recall efforts.

Sounds like they are saying exactly what I've been saying.

But the Constitution’s silence is a signal the state’s law and constitution are valid, according to the Committee to Recall Senator Menendez, which is backed by the New Jersey chapter of the conservative Tea Party movement.

The Constitution's silence? How about those sections of Article I that I quoted. Silent my ass.


But...you know, this will be a good thing. The Supreme Court may not be silent for very long on this and the whole "state recalls trump U.S. Constitution" thingee will be gone for good....except for the nutbar loony teabaggers.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Let me help you with bold print...STATE....let me spell it slowly....S....T....A....T....E...legislators. We were discussing FEDERAL.....F....E....D....E....R....A....L legislators and the U.S Constitution.


So...with all that....we are STILL waiting for someone to show how a state constitution can trump the U.S. Constitution.

No one here has suggested the States' Constitution can trump the US Constitution you stupid fuck. But obviously you don't pay attention to the legal proceedings going on in the US.

Wow....you and others MOST CERTAINLY WERE....and anyone looking back at the posts in question can see that.



Silence means consent? Maybe it means they haven't had a case to decide yet. But I welcome the crazy teabaggers' attempt at recalling a U.S. Senator. Let everyone in New Jersey see how loony they are....and in New Jersey, that's saying a lot.




You are aware, I hope, that allowing a petition effort to continue is NOT agreement that something is Constitutional. Prop 187 here in CA went thru the entire process, was voted on and passed by about 65% about 10-15 years ago...and was immediately declared unConstitutional.

Menendez’s attorney and the state Attorney General’s Office have argued the U.S. Constitution trumps both the state constitution and state law, which permit the recall of federal officials. The federal Constitution neither permits nor prohibits such recall efforts.

Sounds like they are saying exactly what I've been saying.

But the Constitution’s silence is a signal the state’s law and constitution are valid, according to the Committee to Recall Senator Menendez, which is backed by the New Jersey chapter of the conservative Tea Party movement.

The Constitution's silence? How about those sections of Article I that I quoted. Silent my ass.


But...you know, this will be a good thing. The Supreme Court may not be silent for very long on this and the whole "state recalls trump U.S. Constitution" thingee will be gone for good....except for the nutbar loony teabaggers.

The article you posted said nothing about the recall process, hence the Constitution's silence on this matter. That's why it will be going to the New Jersey Supreme Court. You're ignoring the fact that the Appeals Court opinion was that this recall is NOT unconstitutional. Thier opinion added, "The silence of the federal Constitution [on recall] may well result in the conclusion that it may be done."

Show where I have stated that a States Constitution trumps the US Constitution.

I have stated from the start and I still maintain that office holders can be removed from office by recall or by several different means whether they are recalled, impeached. expelled or voted out. Since this is the first time ever that a US Representative is the subject of a recall the constitutionality has never been an issue up until now. So in essence you have no leg to stand on to support your claim that recalling a US representative is unconstitutional.

 

[uscitizen]

Imagine that? A Congresscritter that is SWORN to uphold it...Defend it...Is called out upon it...and by...[DrumRoll]...A TEA PARTY MEMBER

YouTube - LoBiondo doesn't know the US Constitution



Folks? It IS our Duty to grill these people. THEY are our employees...seems that some don't KNOW their JOB.

Go get them. Call them OUT.

I did not vote for LoBiando.
Never even heard of em.

 

[bodecea]

No one here has suggested the States' Constitution can trump the US Constitution you stupid fuck. But obviously you don't pay attention to the legal proceedings going on in the US.

Wow....you and others MOST CERTAINLY WERE....and anyone looking back at the posts in question can see that.



Silence means consent? Maybe it means they haven't had a case to decide yet. But I welcome the crazy teabaggers' attempt at recalling a U.S. Senator. Let everyone in New Jersey see how loony they are....and in New Jersey, that's saying a lot.




You are aware, I hope, that allowing a petition effort to continue is NOT agreement that something is Constitutional. Prop 187 here in CA went thru the entire process, was voted on and passed by about 65% about 10-15 years ago...and was immediately declared unConstitutional.


Sounds like they are saying exactly what I've been saying.

But the Constitution’s silence is a signal the state’s law and constitution are valid, according to the Committee to Recall Senator Menendez, which is backed by the New Jersey chapter of the conservative Tea Party movement.

The Constitution's silence? How about those sections of Article I that I quoted. Silent my ass.


But...you know, this will be a good thing. The Supreme Court may not be silent for very long on this and the whole "state recalls trump U.S. Constitution" thingee will be gone for good....except for the nutbar loony teabaggers.

The article you posted said nothing about the recall process, hence the Constitution's silence on this matter. That's why it will be going to the New Jersey Supreme Court. You're ignoring the fact that the Appeals Court opinion was that this recall is NOT unconstitutional. Thier opinion added, "The silence of the federal Constitution [on recall] may well result in the conclusion that it may be done."

Show where I have stated that a States Constitution trumps the US Constitution.

I have stated from the start and I still maintain that office holders can be removed from office by recall or by several different means whether they are recalled, impeached. expelled or voted out. Since this is the first time ever that a US Representative is the subject of a recall the constitutionality has never been an issue up until now. So in essence you have no leg to stand on to support your claim that recalling a US representative is unconstitutional.

The article I posted? What article have I posted, Secesh? Are you lying again?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Wow....you and others MOST CERTAINLY WERE....and anyone looking back at the posts in question can see that.



Silence means consent? Maybe it means they haven't had a case to decide yet. But I welcome the crazy teabaggers' attempt at recalling a U.S. Senator. Let everyone in New Jersey see how loony they are....and in New Jersey, that's saying a lot.




You are aware, I hope, that allowing a petition effort to continue is NOT agreement that something is Constitutional. Prop 187 here in CA went thru the entire process, was voted on and passed by about 65% about 10-15 years ago...and was immediately declared unConstitutional.


Sounds like they are saying exactly what I've been saying.



The Constitution's silence? How about those sections of Article I that I quoted. Silent my ass.


But...you know, this will be a good thing. The Supreme Court may not be silent for very long on this and the whole "state recalls trump U.S. Constitution" thingee will be gone for good....except for the nutbar loony teabaggers.

The article you posted said nothing about the recall process, hence the Constitution's silence on this matter. That's why it will be going to the New Jersey Supreme Court. You're ignoring the fact that the Appeals Court opinion was that this recall is NOT unconstitutional. Thier opinion added, "The silence of the federal Constitution [on recall] may well result in the conclusion that it may be done."

Show where I have stated that a States Constitution trumps the US Constitution.

I have stated from the start and I still maintain that office holders can be removed from office by recall or by several different means whether they are recalled, impeached. expelled or voted out. Since this is the first time ever that a US Representative is the subject of a recall the constitutionality has never been an issue up until now. So in essence you have no leg to stand on to support your claim that recalling a US representative is unconstitutional.

The article I posted? What article have I posted, Secesh? Are you lying again?

I haven't lied and I don't lie you stupid fuck. Either you or someone else posted article 1 from which you quoted from and have referenced, I assumed you posted it, I could be mistaken, but nonetheless it says absolutely nothing about recalling a US Representative, hence it's silence on the matter.

In other words you dimwitted parasite, since the Constitution is silent about the matter, the case against Mendez is going to be heard in New Jersey's Supreme Court. The Appeals Court has already given their opinion saying that they do not find this action unconstitutional and they believe that it may very well result in the recall being done.

 

[bodecea]

The article you posted said nothing about the recall process, hence the Constitution's silence on this matter. That's why it will be going to the New Jersey Supreme Court. You're ignoring the fact that the Appeals Court opinion was that this recall is NOT unconstitutional. Thier opinion added, "The silence of the federal Constitution [on recall] may well result in the conclusion that it may be done."

Show where I have stated that a States Constitution trumps the US Constitution.

I have stated from the start and I still maintain that office holders can be removed from office by recall or by several different means whether they are recalled, impeached. expelled or voted out. Since this is the first time ever that a US Representative is the subject of a recall the constitutionality has never been an issue up until now. So in essence you have no leg to stand on to support your claim that recalling a US representative is unconstitutional.

The article I posted? What article have I posted, Secesh? Are you lying again?

I haven't lied and I don't lie you stupid fuck. Either you or someone else posted article 1 from which you quoted from and have referenced, I assumed you posted it, I could be mistaken, but nonetheless it says absolutely nothing about recalling a US Representative, hence it's silence on the matter.

In other words you dimwitted parasite, since the Constitution is silent about the matter, the case against Mendez is going to be heard in New Jersey's Supreme Court. The Appeals Court has already given their opinion saying that they do not find this action unconstitutional and they believe that it may very well result in the recall being done.

So, you admit that you don't even check before you say I posted some article. Go back and look (I did when I became puzzled by your lying post) You just make shit up.

As for calling me a parasite....yeah I suppose someone like you would call a retired military officer a parasite. Tell us what you have done for this country again?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The article I posted? What article have I posted, Secesh? Are you lying again?

I haven't lied and I don't lie you stupid fuck. Either you or someone else posted article 1 from which you quoted from and have referenced, I assumed you posted it, I could be mistaken, but nonetheless it says absolutely nothing about recalling a US Representative, hence it's silence on the matter.

In other words you dimwitted parasite, since the Constitution is silent about the matter, the case against Mendez is going to be heard in New Jersey's Supreme Court. The Appeals Court has already given their opinion saying that they do not find this action unconstitutional and they believe that it may very well result in the recall being done.

So, you admit that you don't even check before you say I posted some article. Go back and look (I did when I became puzzled by your lying post) You just make shit up.

As for calling me a parasite....yeah I suppose someone like you would call a retired military officer a parasite. Tell us what you have done for this country again?

Again? That would imply that I've already told you. I could care less if your retired military or not, you're still a parasite. Tim McVeigh also served in the military as did Nidal Malik Hasan and John Allen Muhammad.

 

[bodecea]

I haven't lied and I don't lie you stupid fuck. Either you or someone else posted article 1 from which you quoted from and have referenced, I assumed you posted it, I could be mistaken, but nonetheless it says absolutely nothing about recalling a US Representative, hence it's silence on the matter.

In other words you dimwitted parasite, since the Constitution is silent about the matter, the case against Mendez is going to be heard in New Jersey's Supreme Court. The Appeals Court has already given their opinion saying that they do not find this action unconstitutional and they believe that it may very well result in the recall being done.

So, you admit that you don't even check before you say I posted some article. Go back and look (I did when I became puzzled by your lying post) You just make shit up.

As for calling me a parasite....yeah I suppose someone like you would call a retired military officer a parasite. Tell us what you have done for this country again?

Again? That would imply that I've already told you. I could care less if your retired military or not, you're still a parasite. Tim McVeigh also served in the military as did Nidal Malik Hasan and John Allen Muhammad.

Interesting. Very interesting.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So, you admit that you don't even check before you say I posted some article. Go back and look (I did when I became puzzled by your lying post) You just make shit up.

As for calling me a parasite....yeah I suppose someone like you would call a retired military officer a parasite. Tell us what you have done for this country again?

Again? That would imply that I've already told you. I could care less if your retired military or not, you're still a parasite. Tim McVeigh also served in the military as did Nidal Malik Hasan and John Allen Muhammad.

Interesting. Very interesting.

And very true.

 

[bodecea]

Again? That would imply that I've already told you. I could care less if your retired military or not, you're still a parasite. Tim McVeigh also served in the military as did Nidal Malik Hasan and John Allen Muhammad.

Interesting. Very interesting.

And very true.

So...you call me a parasite and say it is very true. Should be easy to prove...do so.


You compare me to Tim McVeigh, Nidal Malik Hasan, and John Allen Muhammad and say it is very true. Should be easy to prove...do so.


Failure to do so will simply augment the already overwhelming proof that you are a chronic liar and perpetual loser.

 

[bodecea]

Interesting. Very interesting.

And very true.

So...you call me a parasite and say it is very true. Should be easy to prove...do so.


You compare me to Tim McVeigh, Nidal Malik Hasan, and John Allen Muhammad and say it is very true. Should be easy to prove...do so.


Failure to do so will simply augment the already overwhelming proof that you are a chronic liar and perpetual loser.

.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Interesting. Very interesting.

And very true.

So...you call me a parasite and say it is very true. Should be easy to prove...do so.


You compare me to Tim McVeigh, Nidal Malik Hasan, and John Allen Muhammad and say it is very true. Should be easy to prove...do so.


Failure to do so will simply augment the already overwhelming proof that you are a chronic liar and perpetual loser.

It's my opinion of you, I don't need to prove it, it's true.

Yes I did. You all are or were former military. I can prove they were, but you, I'll just have to take you at your word.

Seems like you just can't accept the fact that I am right about the fact that public officials can be recalled as well as being right about blacks fighting for the Confederacy.

Don't ya think those poor dead horses has been beat enough? You should concede with honor. Then I may change my opinion of you.

 

[xsited1]

LoBiando Doesn't KNOW The Constitution...

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution = First Amendment

Who knew?

(That's pretty basic folks, even for a member of Congress.)

 

[bodecea]

And very true.

So...you call me a parasite and say it is very true. Should be easy to prove...do so.


You compare me to Tim McVeigh, Nidal Malik Hasan, and John Allen Muhammad and say it is very true. Should be easy to prove...do so.


Failure to do so will simply augment the already overwhelming proof that you are a chronic liar and perpetual loser.

It's my opinion of you, I don't need to prove it, it's true.

Yes I did. You all are or were former military. I can prove they were, but you, I'll just have to take you at your word.

Seems like you just can't accept the fact that I am right about the fact that public officials can be recalled as well as being right about blacks fighting for the Confederacy.

Don't ya think those poor dead horses has been beat enough? You should concede with honor. Then I may change my opinion of you.

Ah...I see that you and the rest of the world have a different idea of what "true" means.

No wonder you come across as a chronic liar. You can't help yourself.

As for conceding, if I were to ever lose a debate with you, I would....however, that would require that I LET you win...debating you is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed 'man'.

And...finally, what in the world do YOU know about Honor? Pul-leeze.