Frustrated you can't think of more stupid questions?
Frustrated that the Democrats are campaigning for the general when they can't even choose a candidate. Frustrated at the party line. McCain will be vindicated. You will still be an idiot.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Frustrated you can't think of more stupid questions?
Where in the Constitution does it say Congress must vote on presidential appointees.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
It's hard to believe that the editor of the Harvard Law Review would making a binding commitment without any discussion of the terms. Indeed, here are Obama's exact words: "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
That is an agreement to negotiate and nothing else. Inferring a binding agreement from that is unfounded, as Obama wants to resolve the issues regarding the participation of "third parties." In other words, he does not want to tie his hands and then get overun by attacks from Sec. 527 groups like the Swiftboat Liars for Bush.
McCain has not agreed to terms, so Obama is properly concerned about sandbagging. And given McCain's tricky behavior on primary campaign funding, Obama should not tie his own hands when McCain has proven he will ignore his obligations the minute it suits him.
It STATES they must when it gives them the power to consent. One must exersize that power or one is not doing their duty.
Congress does not have the right nor power to simply not act. The power is granted and must be exersized. Once the President nominates someone Congress must act to "consent and advice" that means approve or disapprove. It does not mean refuse to act at all.
Frustrated that the Democrats are campaigning for the general when they can't even choose a candidate. Frustrated at the party line. McCain will be vindicated. You will still be an idiot.
That is certainly the way the GOP saw it under Clinton. Judiciary Committee Republicans sat on 106 federal judicial appointments, some for over 2 years, until Bush came along.No it doesn't. It says "with the advice and consent". Congress hasn't given its advice and consent and its not required to do so.
Yes, that part. Before he won, it was collateral. Therefore at some point it was collateral. Therefore, he got locked in.
You can argue the other way, but its not a pretty argument.
Oh, and besides that, he can't pull out of FEC funding anyway since there aren't enough members to let him go.
Good God, he can't withdrawl from FEC funding, he never took one red cent from the FEC.
It really doesn't.
No it doesn't. It says "with the advice and consent". Congress hasn't given its advice and consent and its not required to do so.
Thats relevant how exactly?
That's your post, not mine. He hasn't accepted one red cent as of yet, so yes he can pull out.
Yes it is Mensa boy.
And in fact the article starts have by saying they must do so with the Senators present. No requirement to have anything more than a qurom.
That's your post, not mine. He hasn't accepted one red cent as of yet, so yes he can pull out.
No, retard, its not.
It never says must.
The only retard here is you for claiming the Congress can refuse to do it's required duty.
I love when you try and intepret the Constitution. Its really quite amusing.
Even ASSUMING that if the Constitution says Congress does something, that means they MUST do it, do you think that Congress doesn't have other things it HAS to do? Even with that asinine interpretation, Congress would just always be doing things it must do, and in the end some things just get left behind. Ah well, so sad.
Here are the FEC guidelines.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/11cfrv1_08.html
Please quote me where in them it says that a candidate can withdraw from Federal funding as long as they have received no funds.
Also, there aren't enough members to let him withdraw even if he meets that burden. So cheers. Hes pretty much locked in.
Here are the FEC guidelines.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/11cfrv1_08.html
Please quote me where in them it says that a candidate can withdraw from Federal funding as long as they have received no funds.
Also, there aren't enough members to let him withdraw even if he meets that burden. So cheers. Hes pretty much locked in.